| 1. |
- Jung, Se Yong, et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiovascular events and safety outcomes associated with remdesivir using a World Health Organization international pharmacovigilance database
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Clinical and Translational Science. - : Wiley. - 1752-8054 .- 1752-8062. ; 15:2, s. 501-513
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- On October 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved remdesivir as the first drug for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), increasing remdesivir prescriptions worldwide. However, potential cardiovascular (CV) toxicities associated with remdesivir remain unknown. We aimed to characterize the CV adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with remdesivir using VigiBase, an individual case safety report database of the World Health Organization (WHO). Disproportionality analyses of CV-ADRs associated with remdesivir were performed using reported odds ratios and information components. We conducted in vitro experiments using cardiomyocytes derived from human pluripotent stem cell cardiomyocytes (hPSC-CMs) to confirm cardiotoxicity of remdesivir. To distinguish drug-induced CV-ADRs from COVID-19 effects, we restricted analyses to patients with COVID-19 and found that, after adjusting for multiple confounders, cardiac arrest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-3.29), bradycardia (aOR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.24-3.53), and hypotension (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.03-2.73) were associated with remdesivir. In vitro data demonstrated that remdesivir reduced the cell viability of hPSC-CMs in time- and dose-dependent manners. Physicians should be aware of potential CV consequences following remdesivir use and implement adequate CV monitoring to maintain a tolerable safety margin.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kim, Jae Han, et al.
(författare)
-
Environmental Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and Biomarkers for Postpartum Depressive Symptoms : An Umbrella Review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. - : Elsevier. - 0149-7634 .- 1873-7528. ; 140
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- We performed an umbrella review on environmental risk/protective factors and biomarkers for postpartum depressive symptoms to establish a hierarchy of evidence. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until 12 January 2021. We included systematic reviews providing meta-analyses related to our research objectives. Methodological quality was assessed by AMSTAR 2, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated by GRADE. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021230784). We identified 30 articles, which included 45 environmental risk/protective factors (154594 cases, 7302273 population) and 9 biomarkers (2018 cases, 16757 population). The credibility of evidence was convincing (class I) for antenatal anxiety (OR 2.49, 1.91-3.25) and psychological violence (OR 1.93, 1.54-2.42); and highly suggestive (class II) for intimate partner violence experience (OR 2.86, 2.12-3.87), intimate partner violence during pregnancy (RR 2.81, 2.11-3.74), smoking during pregnancy (OR 2.39, 1.78-3.2), history of premenstrual syndrome (OR 2.2, 1.81-2.68), any type of violence experience (OR 2.04, 1.72-2.41), primiparity compared to multiparity (RR 1.76, 1.59-1.96), and unintended pregnancy (OR 1.53, 1.35-1.75).
|
|
| 3. |
- Kim, Min Seo, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical or medical, and non-medical facemasks in protection against respiratory virus infection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Reviews in Medical Virology. - : WILEY. - 1052-9276 .- 1099-1654. ; 32:5
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical/medical and non-medical facemasks as personal protective equipment against respiratory virus infection. The study incorporated 35 published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating specific mask effectiveness against influenza virus, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and medRxiv databases for studies published up to 5 February 2021 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020214729). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of respiratory viral infection. The quality of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach. High compliance to mask-wearing conferred a significantly better protection (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.82) than low compliance. N95 or equivalent masks were the most effective in providing protection against coronavirus infections (OR, 0.30; CI, 0.20-0.44) consistently across subgroup analyses of causative viruses and clinical settings. Evidence supporting the use of medical or surgical masks against influenza or coronavirus infections (SARS, MERS and COVID-19) was weak. Our study confirmed that the use of facemasks provides protection against respiratory viral infections in general; however, the effectiveness may vary according to the type of facemask used. Our findings encourage the use of N95 respirators or their equivalents (e.g., P2) for best personal protection in healthcare settings until more evidence on surgical and medical masks is accrued. This study highlights a substantial lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness of mask types in community settings.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kim, Min Seo, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to influenza vaccines: A pharmacovigilance analysis using WHO international database
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Virology. - : WILEY. - 0146-6615 .- 1096-9071. ; 94:3, s. 1085-1095
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are being rolled out. Despite the high volume of emerging evidence regarding adverse events (AEs) associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, previous studies have thus far been largely based on the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated control, possibly highlighting the AE risks with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Comparing the safety profile of mRNA vaccinated individuals with otherwise vaccinated individuals would enable a more relevant assessment for the safety of mRNA vaccination. We designed a comparative safety study between 18 755 and 27 895 individuals who reported to VigiBase for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with mRNA COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, respectively, from January 1, 2020, to January 17, 2021. We employed disproportionality analysis to rapidly detect relevant safety signals and compared comparative risks of a diverse span of AEFIs for the vaccines. The safety profile of novel mRNA vaccines was divergent from that of influenza vaccines. The overall pattern suggested that systematic reactions like chill, myalgia, fatigue were more noticeable with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, while injection site reactogenicity events were more prevalent with the influenza vaccine. Compared to the influenza vaccine, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated a significantly higher risk for a few manageable cardiovascular complications, such as hypertensive crisis (adjusted reporting odds ratio [ROR], 12.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.47-65.54), and supraventricular tachycardia (adjusted ROR, 7.94; 95% CI, 2.62-24.00), but lower risk of neurological complications such as syncope, neuralgia, loss of consciousness, Guillain-Barre syndrome, gait disturbance, visual impairment, and dyskinesia. This study has not identified significant safety concerns regarding mRNA vaccination in real-world settings. The overall safety profile patterned a lower risk of serious AEFI following mRNA vaccines compared to influenza vaccines.
|
|
| 5. |
- Lee, Christine J., et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 breakthrough infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Virology. - : WILEY. - 0146-6615 .- 1096-9071. ; 94:9, s. 4234-4245
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- To provide a comparative meta-analysis and systematic review of the risk and clinical outcomes of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Eighteen studies of COVID-19 infections in fully vaccinated ("breakthrough infections") and unvaccinated individuals were reviewed from Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The meta-analysis examined the summary effects and between-study heterogeneity regarding differences in the risk of infection, hospitalization, treatments, and mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. he overall risk of infection was lower for the fully vaccinated compared to that of the unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.21), especially for variants other than Delta (Delta: RR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.13-0.65; other variants: RR 0.06, 95% CI: 0.04-0.08). The risk of asymptomatic infection was not statistically significantly different between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.27-1.19). There were neither statistically significant differences in risk of hospitalization (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.38-2.93), invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 1.65, 95% CI: 0.90-3.06), or mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.79-1.78). Conversely, the risk of supplemental oxygen during hospitalization was significantly higher for the unvaccinated (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82). Unvaccinated people were more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection than fully vaccinated for all variants. Once infected, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation, or mortality. Still, unvaccinated showed an increased need for oxygen supplementation. Further prospective analysis, including patients risk factors, COVID-19 variants, and the utilized treatment strategies, would be warranted.
|
|
