Dataset Information

Risk associated with bee venom therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The safety of bee venom as a therapeutic compound has been extensively studied, resulting in the identification of potential adverse events, which range from trivial skin reactions that usually resolve over several days to life-threating severe immunological responses such as anaphylaxis. In this systematic review, we provide a summary of the types and prevalence of adverse events associated with bee venom therapy.

Methods

We searched the literature using 12 databases from their inception to June 2014, without language restrictions. We included all types of clinical studies in which bee venom was used as a key intervention and adverse events that may have been causally related to bee venom therapy were reported.

Results

A total of 145 studies, including 20 randomized controlled trials, 79 audits and cohort studies, 33 single-case studies, and 13 case series, were evaluated in this review. The median frequency of patients who experienced adverse events related to venom immunotherapy was 28.87% (interquartile range, 14.57-39.74) in the audit studies. Compared with normal saline injection, bee venom acupuncture showed a 261% increased relative risk for the occurrence of adverse events (relative risk, 3.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.10 to 6.20) in the randomized controlled trials, which might be overestimated or underestimated owing to the poor reporting quality of the included studies.

Conclusions

Adverse events related to bee venom therapy are frequent; therefore, practitioners of bee venom therapy should be cautious when applying it in daily clinical practice, and the practitioner's education and qualifications regarding the use of bee venom therapy should be ensured.

SUBMITTER: Park JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4440710 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk associated with bee venom therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Park Jeong Hwan JH Yim Bo Kyung BK Lee Jun-Hwan JH Lee Sanghun S Kim Tae-Hun TH

PloS one 20150521 5

<h4>Objective</h4>The safety of bee venom as a therapeutic compound has been extensively studied, resulting in the identification of potential adverse events, which range from trivial skin reactions that usually resolve over several days to life-threating severe immunological responses such as anaphylaxis. In this systematic review, we provide a summary of the types and prevalence of adverse events associated with bee venom therapy.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the literature using 12 databases fr ...[more]

PMID: 25996493

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The objective of the study was to assess the effect of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy on surgical site infections and other wound complications in women after cesarean delivery. DATA SOURCES:We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy with standard wound dressing for cesarean delivery. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS:The primary outcome was surgical site infection after cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes were composite wound complications, wound dehiscence, wound seroma, endometritis, and hospital readmission. Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgin's I2. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS:Six randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies in high-risk mostly obese women met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Six were full-text articles, 2 published abstracts, and 1 report of trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies were also heterogeneous in the patients included and type of negative-pressure wound therapy device. The risk of surgical site infection was significantly lower with the use of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard wound dressing (7 studies: pooled risk ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.66; adjusted risk ratio, -6.0%, 95% confidence interval, -10.0% to -3.0%; number needed to treat, 17, 95% confidence interval, 10-34). There was no evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 9.9%) or publication bias (Egger P = .532). Of the secondary outcomes, only composite wound complications were significantly reduced in patients receiving prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressing (9 studies: pooled risk ratio, 0.68, 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.94). CONCLUSION:Studies on the effectiveness of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy at cesarean delivery are heterogeneous but suggest a reduction in surgical site infection and overall wound complications. Larger definitive trials are needed to clarify the clinical utility of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean delivery.

Project description:Importance:Although intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment represents the first-line therapy for many retinal diseases, the issue of their systemic safety is debatable. Objectives:To assess whether intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy might be associated with increased risk of mortality and which variables are associated with the increase. Data Sources:PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to May 6, 2019. Study Selection:Randomized clinical trials comparing intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment with control groups and with follow-up of at least 6 months were selected. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Data were independently collected by 2 investigators. Meta-analyses were conducted using the frequentist and Bayesian methods. For the frequentist approach, random- and fixed-effects models were used, with random-effects models considered the primary technique. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were computed. For the bayesian approach, uninformative and informative priors were used. Odds ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were computed. Meta-regression analyses were based on random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome measure was the all-cause death rate. Secondary outcomes included meta-regression analyses on the following variables: type of drug, number of injections, follow-up time, diagnosis, and cardiovascular risk. Results:Of 2336 studies identified, 34 unique studies with 8887 unique participants were included in the present meta-analysis. For the frequentist analysis, fixed- and random-effects models yielded similar estimates (ORs, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.95-2.07; P?=?.09] and 1.34 [95% CI, 0.89-2.01; P?=?.17], respectively). For the Bayesian approach, noninformative and informative priors yielded similar results (ORs,?1.34 [95% CrI, 0.79-2.34; 0.13 probability of OR?1.00] and 1.40 [95% CrI, 0.82-2.32; 0.11 probability of OR?1.00], respectively). Meta-regression analyses showed the following risk for 1 injection more: frequentist OR of 1.12 (95% CI, 1.04-1.22; P?=?.005) and Bayesian OR of 1.06 (95% CrI, 0.98-1.15; 0.06 probability of OR?1.00). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, no difference was found in the mortality rate between intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment and control groups. Additional data seem warranted to determine whether the mortality rate is increased in patients receiving a greater number of injections.

Project description:Background: The use of opioid-gabapentinoid combinations has increased, raising several safety concerns. However, meta-analysis studies focusing on this issue are limited. Objective: To evaluate the risk of central nervous system (CNS) depression, gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, and mortality of combination therapy compared with those of opioid therapy and to explore the differences in the results according to study design and indications. Methods: Relevant studies were selected (published before 30 January 2022) by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. The pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the outcomes were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed according to study characteristics. Quality assessment was conducted using the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias in non-RCTs tool for non-randomized trials. Results: Adverse events were reported in 26 RCTs and 7 non-RCTs, and mortality was reported in 10 non-RCTs. Compared to opioid therapy, dizziness, cognitive dysfunction, and respiratory depression in combination therapy significantly increased in non-RCTs (OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.82-5.85; OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.51-6.50; OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31-2.24, respectively), and a similar trend for dizziness and cognitive dysfunction was also identified in the RCT analysis, although the difference was not significant. Combination therapy for cancer pain was associated with the highest risk of sedation in subgroup analysis. Combination therapy significantly decreased the risk of GI adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, and constipation. The mortality risk associated with combination therapy was higher than that associated with opioid therapy (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.26-6.05). Conclusion: Opioid-gabapentinoid combination therapy could be associated with an increased risk of CNS depression and mortality, despite tolerable GI adverse events. These data suggest that combination therapy requires close monitoring of CNS depression, especially in cancer patients. Caution is needed in interpreting the clinical meanings owing to the lack of risk difference in respiratory depression in the RCT-only analysis and the absence of RCT or prospective studies investigating mortality.

Project description:IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the common autoimmune disease with low quality of life. The representative treatment is medication and medication usage has improved through update of clinical guidelines, however, there are still limitations. Bee venom (BV) has been reported to have meaningful therapeutic effects and the possibility of alternative options for RA through several types of studies, but there is no well-organised and recent published systematic review (SR).MethodsWe will search randomised controlled trials about the BV on RA from the inception to 31 May 2022 in various databases, manual research and contacting authors. Electronic databases will include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, CiNii, J-STAGE, KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database, Korean Studies Information Service System, National Digital Science Library, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System. With screening and reviewing process, we will identify the eligible studies and extract the needed data. The primary outcome will be the disease activity scores indicating the improvement of RA symptoms (American College of Rheumatology response criteria 20, 50, 70), functions (Health Assessment Questionnaire, Disease Activity Score of 28 joints), joint (Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index), pain (Visual Analogue Scale, Numerical Rating Scale) and effective rate. The secondary outcomes will be the RA-related blood test levels and adverse events. We will perform a meta-analysis by Review Manager software, the assessment of risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration 'risk of bias' and the determination of quality of evidence by Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationOur SR will suggest the clinical evidence of the use of BV for RA to patient, clinicians and policymakers. We will publish our results in a peer-review journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021238058.

Dataset Information

Risk associated with bee venom therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Risk associated with bee venom therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets