-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Appetite Depressants; Bias; Blood Pressure; Body Weight; Bupropion; Diet, Reducing; Drug Combinations; Female; Fructose; Humans; Hypertension; Lactones; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Orlistat; Phentermine; Piperidines; Pyrazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Time; Topiramate
PubMed: 33454957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007654.pub5 -
PloS One 2022We conducted a scoping systematic review with respect to how consumer engagement with interactive advertising is evaluated and if interactive features influence consumer...
We conducted a scoping systematic review with respect to how consumer engagement with interactive advertising is evaluated and if interactive features influence consumer recall, awareness, or comprehension of product claims and risk disclosures for informing regulatory science. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Business Source Corporate, and SCOPUS were searched for original research published from 1997 through February 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Outcomes were abstracted into a structured abstraction form. We included 32 studies overall. The types of interactive ads evaluated included website banner and pop up ads, search engine ads, interactive TV ads, advergames, product websites, digital magazine ads, and ads on social network sites. Twenty-three studies reported objective measures of engagement using observational analyses or laboratory-based experiments. In nine studies evaluating the association between different interactivity features and outcomes, the evidence was mixed on whether more interactivity improves or worsens recall and comprehension. Studies vary with respect to populations, designs, ads evaluated, and outcomes assessed.
Topics: Advertising; Community Participation; Consumer Behavior; Disclosure; Health Education; Humans; Mental Recall
PubMed: 35113964
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263339 -
Preventive Medicine Reports Jan 2024Cannabis legalization provides an opportunity to communicate with consumers through mandated health warnings on cannabis packaging. However, research on cannabis health... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis legalization provides an opportunity to communicate with consumers through mandated health warnings on cannabis packaging. However, research on cannabis health warnings is a nascent field. Therefore, a review is needed to synthesize cannabis health warning research and inform ongoing policy discussions.
METHODS
This paper used systematic review guidelines to search online databases, including PubMed Central, Scopus, Web of Science, Jstor, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Medline, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Search strings combined the terms "cannabis" or "marijuana" with "health warning" or "health warning message" or "warning label" or "health warning label" or "health information label." Results were synthesized narratively.
RESULTS
The search identified 90 research articles. After screening, 17 studies on the impact of cannabis health warnings were retained. Retained studies focused on the hypothetical effects of cannabis health warnings ( = 11; 64.7 %) and "real world" effects of implementing warnings post-legalization ( = 6; 35.3 %). Evidence indicated mandated cannabis health warnings improved noticing and recall of health warning content. Cannabis health warnings describing risks of addiction were consistently rated the least effective. Pictorial cannabis health warnings generally outperformed text-only warnings when displayed on their own, while experiments with warnings on products had mixed results. Cannabis health warnings decreased product appeal, mainly when package branding was minimized.
CONCLUSIONS
Health warnings on cannabis packaging are an important strategy to communicate risk to consumers. Mandating warnings increased notice, recall, and health knowledge. Warnings with pictures and describing specific risks were most effective, as was showing warnings without product branding.
PubMed: 38222305
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102573 -
British Journal of Haematology Nov 2013Evidence regarding the efficacy of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) addition to standard induction chemotherapy in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Evidence regarding the efficacy of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) addition to standard induction chemotherapy in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is conflicting. This systematic review aimed to identify and summarize all evidence regarding the benefits and harms of adding GO to conventional chemotherapy for induction treatment of AML. A comprehensive literature search of two databases (PUBMED and Cochrane) from inception up to November 22, 2012, and 4 years of proceedings from four major haematology/oncology conferences was undertaken. Endpoints included benefits (complete remission, relapse-free, event-free, and overall survival), and harms (early mortality and incidence of hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstructive syndrome). Seven trials (3942 patients) met all inclusion criteria. Addition of GO showed improved relapse-free [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0·84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0·71-0·99)] and event-free survival [HR = 0·59 (95%CI 0·48-0·74)] but not overall survival [HR = 0·95 (95%CI 0·83-1·08)]. Addition of GO resulted in higher rate of early mortality [Risk Ratio = 1·60 (95%CI 1·07-2·39)]. Improved overall survival was observed in studies using a lower cumulative GO dose (<6 mg/m(2) ) [HR = 0·89 (95%CI 0·81-0·99)]. Addition of GO to conventional chemotherapy as induction therapy may improve relapse-free and event-free survival, but does not impact overall survival and significantly increases early mortality in AML.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Disease-Free Survival; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gemtuzumab; Hepatic Veno-Occlusive Disease; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Leukemia, Myelomonocytic, Acute; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 24033280
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.12528 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cause of Death; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; Placebos; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Simeprevir
PubMed: 28922704
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cause of Death; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; Placebos; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Simeprevir
PubMed: 28585310
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub2 -
Journal of Biomaterials Applications Feb 2020Medical devices made of polydioxanone (a synthetic biodegradable polymer) have been available since the early 1980s. However, no review regarding their performance and...
BACKGROUND
Medical devices made of polydioxanone (a synthetic biodegradable polymer) have been available since the early 1980s. However, no review regarding their performance and safety has been published.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review intends to review and assess commercially available polydioxanone implants and their safety and performance in patients.
METHODS
We searched for approved polydioxanone implants in several Food and Drug Administration databases. Then, we performed a literature search for publications and clinical trials where polydioxanone devices were implanted in patients. This search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and other databases. Safety and performance of polydioxanone implants in patients were assessed and compared with the implantation of non-polydioxanone devices, when possible, based on scoring systems developed by the authors that analyse surgical site infection rates, inflammatory reaction rates, foreign body response, postoperative pain and fever.
RESULTS
Food and Drug Administration databases search revealed that 48 implants have been approved since 1981, with 1294 adverse reactions or product malfunction in the last decade and 16 recalls. A total of 49 clinical trials and 104 scientific publications were found. Polydioxanone sutures and meshes/plates had low rates of surgical site infection, inflammatory reaction, foreign body response and postoperative fever. Polydioxanone clips/staples reported high rates of surgical site infection, postoperative fever and pain, with sub-optimal clinical performance and poor safety rates. The remaining implants identified showed high levels of safety and performance. Safety scores of polydioxanone implants and non-polydioxanone alternatives are similar. Polydioxanone monofilament sutures perform better than non-polydioxanone alternatives but performance did not differ with remaining polydioxanone implant types.
CONCLUSIONS
Although polydioxanone clips/staples should be implanted with caution and monitored carefully, in general, safety and performance scores of other polydioxanone implants did not differ from non-polydioxanone alternatives. This review will be a useful reference for researchers and industries developing new polydioxanone medical devices.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Biocompatible Materials; Device Approval; Humans; Inflammation; Medical Device Recalls; Polydioxanone
PubMed: 31771403
DOI: 10.1177/0885328219888841 -
PLoS Medicine 2012Policymakers and regulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are weighing reforms to their medical device approval and post-market surveillance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Policymakers and regulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are weighing reforms to their medical device approval and post-market surveillance systems. Data may be available that identify strengths and weakness of the approaches to medical device regulation in these settings.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We performed a systematic review to find empirical studies evaluating medical device regulation in the US or EU. We searched Medline using two nested categories that included medical devices and glossary terms attributable to the US Food and Drug Administration and the EU, following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. We supplemented this search with a review of the US Government Accountability Office online database for reports on US Food and Drug Administration device regulation, consultations with local experts in the field, manual reference mining of selected articles, and Google searches using the same key terms used in the Medline search. We found studies of premarket evaluation and timing (n = 9), studies of device recalls (n = 8), and surveys of device manufacturers (n = 3). These studies provide evidence of quality problems in pre-market submissions in the US, provide conflicting views of device safety based largely on recall data, and relay perceptions of some industry leaders from self-surveys.
CONCLUSIONS
Few studies have quantitatively assessed medical device regulation in either the US or EU. Existing studies of US and EU device approval and post-market evaluation performance suggest that policy reforms are necessary for both systems, including improving classification of devices in the US and promoting transparency and post-market oversight in the EU. Assessment of regulatory performance in both settings is limited by lack of data on post-approval safety outcomes. Changes to these device approval and post-marketing systems must be accompanied by ongoing research to ensure that there is better assessment of what works in either setting.
Topics: Equipment and Supplies; European Union; Humans; Medical Device Recalls; Product Surveillance, Postmarketing; Social Control, Formal; United States
PubMed: 22912563
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001276 -
Heart Rhythm Jul 2015The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) recalls and advisories has increased over the past 3 decades, yet no consensus exists on how to best manage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Complications from prophylactic replacement of cardiac implantable electronic device generators in response to United States Food and Drug Administration recall: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The number of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) recalls and advisories has increased over the past 3 decades, yet no consensus exists on how to best manage patients with these CIEDs, partially because rates of complications from prophylactic replacement are unknown.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to establish rates of complications when recalled CIED generators are replaced prophylactically.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for reports of prophylactic replacement of recalled CIED generators. Studies with <20 subjects were excluded. We then conducted a meta-analysis of qualifying studies to determine the rates of combined major complications, mortality, and reoperation.
RESULTS
We identified 7 citations that met our inclusion criteria and reported ≥1 end-points of interest. Four were single center, and 3 were multicenter. Six studies collected data retrospectively (n = 1213) and 1 prospectively (n = 222). Using a random effects model to combine data from all included studies, the rate of major complications was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0%-4.5%). Combining data from 6 studies reporting mortality and reoperation, the rates were 0.5% (95% CI 0.1%-0.9%) and 2.5% (95% CI 0.8%-4.5%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic replacement of recalled CIED generators is associated with a low mortality rate but nontrivial rates of other major complications similar to those reported when CIED generators are replaced for other reasons. Thus, when considering replacing a recalled CIED generator, known risks of elective generator replacement likely apply and can be weighed against risks associated with device failure.
Topics: Defibrillators, Implantable; Device Removal; Equipment Failure; Humans; Medical Device Recalls; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 25847475
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.04.003 -
PloS One 2013Standardised or 'plain' tobacco packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and is currently being considered in other countries. The primary objective of... (Review)
Review
Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Standardised or 'plain' tobacco packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012 and is currently being considered in other countries. The primary objective of this systematic review was to locate, assess and synthesise published and grey literature relating to the potential impacts of standardised tobacco packaging as proposed by the guidelines for the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: reduced appeal, increased salience and effectiveness of health warnings, and more accurate perceptions of product strength and harm.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched and researchers in the field were contacted to identify studies. Eligible studies were published or unpublished primary research of any design, issued since 1980 and concerning tobacco packaging. Twenty-five quantitative studies reported relevant outcomes and met the inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was conducted.
RESULTS
Studies that explored the impact of package design on appeal consistently found that standardised packaging reduced the appeal of cigarettes and smoking, and was associated with perceived lower quality, poorer taste and less desirable smoker identities. Although findings were mixed, standardised packs tended to increase the salience and effectiveness of health warnings in terms of recall, attention, believability and seriousness, with effects being mediated by the warning size, type and position on pack. Pack colour was found to influence perceptions of product harm and strength, with darker coloured standardised packs generally perceived as containing stronger tasting and more harmful cigarettes than fully branded packs; lighter coloured standardised packs suggested weaker and less harmful cigarettes. Findings were largely consistent, irrespective of location and sample.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence strongly suggests that standardised packaging will reduce the appeal of packaging and of smoking in general; that it will go some way to reduce consumer misperceptions regarding product harm based upon package design; and will help make the legally required on-pack health warnings more salient.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Attitude to Health; Databases, Bibliographic; Female; Harm Reduction; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Male; Marketing; Motivation; Product Labeling; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Products
PubMed: 24146791
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075919