Dataset Information

Wheeze as an adverse event in pediatric vaccine and drug randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Wheeze is an important sign indicating a potentially severe adverse event in vaccine and drug trials, particularly in children. However, there are currently no consensus definitions of wheeze or associated respiratory compromise in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).To identify definitions and severity grading scales of wheeze as an adverse event in vaccine and drug RCTs enrolling children <5 years and to determine their diagnostic performance based on sensitivity, specificity and inter-observer agreement.We performed a systematic review of electronic databases and reference lists with restrictions for trial settings, English language and publication date ?1970. Wheeze definitions and severity grading were abstracted and ranked by a diagnostic certainty score based on sensitivity, specificity and inter-observer agreement.Of 1205 articles identified using our broad search terms, we identified 58 eligible trials conducted in 38 countries, mainly in high-income settings. Vaccines made up the majority (90%) of interventions, particularly influenza vaccines (65%). Only 15 trials provided explicit definitions of wheeze. Of 24 studies that described severity, 11 described wheeze severity in the context of an explicit wheeze definition. The remaining 13 studies described wheeze severity where wheeze was defined as part of a respiratory illness or a wheeze equivalent. Wheeze descriptions were elicited from caregiver reports (14%), physical examination by a health worker (45%) or a combination (41%). There were 21/58 studies in which wheeze definitions included combined caregiver report and healthcare worker assessment. The use of these two methods appeared to have the highest combined sensitivity and specificity.Standardized wheeze definitions and severity grading scales for use in pediatric vaccine or drug trials are lacking. Standardized definitions of wheeze are needed for assessment of possible adverse events as new vaccines and drugs are evaluated.

SUBMITTER: Marangu D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4743983 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Wheeze as an adverse event in pediatric vaccine and drug randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.

Marangu Diana D Kovacs Stephanie S Walson Judd J Bonhoeffer Jan J Ortiz Justin R JR John-Stewart Grace G Horne David J DJ

Vaccine 20150828 41

<h4>Introduction</h4>Wheeze is an important sign indicating a potentially severe adverse event in vaccine and drug trials, particularly in children. However, there are currently no consensus definitions of wheeze or associated respiratory compromise in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).<h4>Objective</h4>To identify definitions and severity grading scales of wheeze as an adverse event in vaccine and drug RCTs enrolling children <5 years and to determine their diagnostic performance based on sen ...[more]

PMID: 26319071

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods.ResultsA total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95% CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95% CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults.ConclusionsInterventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension.

Project description:BackgroundClinical significance in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) can be determined using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which should inform the delta value used to determine sample size. The primary objective was to assess clinical significance in the pediatric oncology randomized controlled trial (RCT) treatment literature by evaluating: (1) the relationship between the treatment effect and the delta value as reported in the sample size calculation, and (2) the concordance between statistical and clinical significance. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reporting of methodological attributes related to clinical significance.MethodsRCTs of pediatric cancer treatments, where a sample size calculation with a delta value was reported or could be calculated, were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group Specialized Register through CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2016.ResultsRCTs (77 overall; 11 and 66), representing 95 (13 and 82) randomized questions were included for non-inferiority and superiority RCTs (herein, respectively). The minority (22.1% overall; 76.9 and 13.4%) of randomized questions reported conclusions based on clinical significance, and only 4.2% (15.4 and 2.4%) explicitly based the delta value on the MCID. Over half (67.4% overall; 92.3 and 63.4%) reported a confidence interval or standard error for the primary outcome experimental and control values and 12.6% (46.2 and 7.3%) reported the treatment effect, respectively. Of the 47 randomized questions in superiority trials that reported statistically non-significant findings, 25.5% were possibly clinically significant. Of the 24 randomized questions in superiority trials that were statistically significant, only 8.3% were definitely clinically significant.ConclusionsA minority of RCTs in the pediatric oncology literature reported methodological attributes related to clinical significance and a notable portion of statistically insignificant studies were possibly clinically significance.

Project description:IntroductionAdverse event (AE) data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allow quantification of a drug's safety risk relative to placebo and comparison across medications. The standard US label for Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs typically lists AEs by MedDRA Preferred Term that occur at ≥ 2% in drug and with greater incidence than in placebo. We suggest that the drug label can be more informative for both patients and physicians if it includes, in addition to AE incidence (percent of subjects who reported the AE out of the total subjects in treatment), the absolute prevalence (percent of subject-days spent with an AE out of the total subject-days spent in treatment) and expected duration (days required for AE incidence to be reduced by half). We also propose a new method to analyze AEs in RCTs using drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence to improve safety signal detection.MethodsAE data from six RCTs in schizophrenia were analyzed (five RCTs of the dopamine D2 receptor-based antipsychotic lurasidone and one RCT of the novel trace amine-associated receptor 1 [TAAR1] agonist ulotaront). We determined incidence, absolute prevalence, and expected duration of AEs for lurasidone and ulotaront vs respective placebo. We also calculated areas under the curve of drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence and mean percent contribution of each AE to this difference.ResultsA number of AEs with the same incidence had different absolute prevalence and expected duration. When accounting for these two parameters, AEs that did not appear in the 2% incidence tables of the drug label turned out to contribute substantially to drug tolerability. The percent contribution of a drug-related AE to the overall side effect burden increased the drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence, whereas the percent contribution of a placebo-related AE decreased such difference, revealing a continuum of risk between drug and placebo. AE prevalence curves for drug were generally greater than those for placebo. Ulotaront exhibited a small drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence curves due to a relatively low incidence and short duration of AEs in the ulotaront treatment arm as well as the emergence of disease-related AEs in the placebo arm.ConclusionReporting AE absolute prevalence and expected duration for each RCT and incorporating them in the drug label is possible, is clinically relevant, and allows standardized comparison of medications. Our new metric, the drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence, facilitates signal detection in RCTs. We piloted this metric in RCTs of several neuropsychiatric indications and drugs, offering a new way to compare AE burden and tolerability among treatments using existing clinical trial information.

Project description:BackgroundIn the context of early vaccine trials aimed at evaluating the safety profile of novel vaccines, abnormal haematological values, such as neutropenia, are often reported. It is therefore important to evaluate how these trials should be planned not to miss potentially important safety signals, but also to understand the implications and the clinical relevance.MethodologyWe report and discuss the results from five clinical trials (two with a new Shigella vaccine in the early stage of clinical development and three with licensed vaccines) where the absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) were evaluated before and after vaccination. Additionally, we have performed a systematic review of the literature on cases of neutropenia reported during vaccine trials to discuss our results in a more general context.Principal findingsBoth in our clinical trials and in the literature review, several cases of neutropenia have been reported, in the first two weeks after vaccination. However, neutropenia was generally transient and had a benign clinical outcome, after vaccination with either multiple novel candidates or well-known licensed vaccines. Additionally, the vaccine recipients with neutropenia frequently had lower baseline ANC than non-neutropenic vaccinees. In many instances neutropenia occurred in subjects of African descent, known to have lower ANC compared to western populations.ConclusionsIt is important to include ANC and other haematological tests in early vaccine trials to identify potential safety signals. Post-vaccination neutropenia is not uncommon, generally transient and clinically benign, but many vaccine trials do not have a sampling schedule that allows its detection. Given ethnic variability in the level of circulating neutrophils, normal ranges taking into account ethnicity should be used for determination of trial inclusion/exclusion criteria and classification of neutropenia related adverse events.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02017899, NCT02034500, NCT01771367, NCT01765413, NCT02523287.

Dataset Information

Wheeze as an adverse event in pediatric vaccine and drug randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.

Publications

Wheeze as an adverse event in pediatric vaccine and drug randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets