Embedding surveillance into clinical care to detect serious adverse events in pregnancy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Seale AC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4817214 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Embedding surveillance into clinical care to detect serious adverse events in pregnancy.
Seale Anna C AC Barsosio Hellen C HC Koech Angela C AC Berkley James A JA
Vaccine 20150805 47
Severe maternal complications in pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa contribute to high maternal mortality and morbidity. Incidence data on severe maternal complications, life-threatening conditions, maternal deaths and birth outcomes are essential for clinical audit and to inform trial design of the types and frequency of expected severe adverse events (SAEs). However, such data are very limited, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. We set up standardized, systematic clinical surveillance embedded int ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe reported incidence of adverse reactions following Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion has generally been lower than expected based on the incidence of transfusion reactions that have been observed in studies of conventional plasma transfusion. This raises the concern for under-reporting of adverse events in studies of CCP that rely on passive surveillance strategies.Materials and methodsOur institution implemented a protocol to actively identify possible adverse reactions to CCP transfusion. In addition, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of inpatients who received CCP at Stanford Hospital between May 13, 2020 and January 31, 2021. We determined the incidence of adverse events following CCP transfusion.ResultsA total of 49 patients received CCP. Seven patients (14%) had an increased supplemental oxygen requirement within 4 h of transfusion completion, including one patient who was intubated during the transfusion. An additional 11 patients (total of 18, 37%) had increased oxygen requirements within 24 h of transfusion, including 3 patients who were intubated. Six patients (12%) fulfilled criteria for transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO).ConclusionUsing an active surveillance strategy, we commonly observed adverse events following the transfusion of CCP to hospitalized patients. It was not possible to definitively determine whether or not these adverse events are related to CCP transfusion. TACO was likely over-diagnosed given overlap with the manifestations of COVID-19. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the potential adverse effects of CCP transfusion may be underestimated by reports from passive surveillance studies.
| S-EPMC8661846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe previously unrecognised or under-recognised adverse events associated with Melody® valve implantation.BackgroundIn rare diseases and conditions, it is typically not feasible to conduct large-scale safety trials before drug or device approval. Therefore, post-market surveillance mechanisms are necessary to detect rare but potentially serious adverse events.MethodsWe reviewed the United States Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database and conducted a structured literature review to evaluate adverse events associated with on- and off-label Melody® valve implantation. Adverse events were compared with those described in the prospective Investigational Device Exemption and Post-Market Approval Melody® transcatheter pulmonary valve trials.ResultsWe identified 631 adverse events associated with "on-label" Melody® valve implants and 84 adverse events associated with "off-label" implants. The most frequent "on-label" adverse events were similar to those described in the prospective trials including stent fracture (n=210) and endocarditis (n=104). Previously unrecognised or under-recognised adverse events included stent fragment embolisation (n=5), device erosion (n=4), immediate post-implant severe valvar insufficiency (n=2), and late coronary compression (n=2 cases at 5 days and 3 months after implantation). Under-recognised adverse events associated with off-label implantation included early valve failure due to insufficiency when implanted in the tricuspid position (n=7) and embolisation with percutaneous implantation in the mitral position (n=5).ConclusionPost-market passive surveillance does not demonstrate a high frequency of previously unrecognised serious adverse events with "on-label" Melody® valve implantation. Further study is needed to evaluate safety of "off-label" uses.
| S-EPMC5425318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSafety data is required to be collected in all clinical trials and can be separated into two types of data, adverse events and serious adverse events. Often, these types of safety data are collected as two discrete data sets, where adverse events that also meet the criteria for seriousness should be reported in both datasets. Safety analyses are often conducted using only the adverse event dataset, which should feature all safety events reported. We investigated whether the reporting of safety in both datasets was systematically followed and explored the impact of this on safety analyses in ICON8, an ovarian cancer clinical trial.MethodsText searches of serious adverse event data identified events that could potentially match the data reported in the adverse event dataset (looking at pre-specified AE terms only). These serious adverse events were then mapped to adverse event data according to predefined criteria: (a) event term matches, (b) date of onset and date of assessment within 30 days of each other, (c) date of assessment lies between date of onset and date of resolution and (d) events confirmed to occur in the same chemotherapy cycle. A combined dataset of all unique safety events (whether originally reported in the adverse event or serious adverse event dataset) was created and safety analyses re-performed.Results51,019 adverse events were reported in ICON8, of which 42,410 were included in the mapping exercise. One thousand five hundred six serious adverse event elements were reported, of which 668 were included in the mapping exercise. Sixty-one percent of serious adverse event elements was matched to an already-reported adverse event. Supplementing these additional safety events and re-performing safety analyses increased the proportion of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse safety events in all arms from 42 to 47% in the control arm and 61 to 65% and 52 to 59% in the research arms. The difference in proportions of grade 3 or worse event in the research arms compared to the control arm changed by 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12 to 24%) and 12% (95% CI 6 to 18%), respectively.ConclusionsThere was low agreement in mapping serious adverse events to already reported adverse events, with nearly 40% of serious adverse events included in the mapping exercise not mapped to an already reported adverse event. Any analyses of safety data that use only adverse event datasets or do not clearly account for serious adverse event data will likely be missing important safety information. Reporting standards should make clear which datasets were used for analyses.
| S-EPMC7495966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe appropriate duration of antibiotics for staphylococcal bacteremia is unknown.ObjectiveTo test whether an algorithm that defines treatment duration for staphylococcal bacteremia vs standard of care provides noninferior efficacy without increasing severe adverse events.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized trial involving adults with staphylococcal bacteremia was conducted at 16 academic medical centers in the United States (n = 15) and Spain (n = 1) from April 2011 to March 2017. Patients were followed up for 42 days beyond end of therapy for those with Staphylococcus aureus and 28 days for those with coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had 1 or more blood cultures positive for S aureus or coagulase-negative staphylococci. Patients were excluded if they had known or suspected complicated infection at the time of randomization.InterventionsPatients were randomized to algorithm-based therapy (n = 255) or usual practice (n = 254). Diagnostic evaluation, antibiotic selection, and duration of therapy were predefined for the algorithm group, whereas clinicians caring for patients in the usual practice group had unrestricted choice of antibiotics, duration, and other aspects of clinical care.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary outcomes were (1) clinical success, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee and tested for noninferiority within a 15% margin; and (2) serious adverse event rates in the intention-to-treat population, tested for superiority. The prespecified secondary outcome measure, tested for superiority, was antibiotic days among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia.ResultsAmong the 509 patients randomized (mean age, 56.6 [SD, 16.8] years; 226 [44.4%] women), 480 (94.3%) completed the trial. Clinical success was documented in 209 of 255 patients assigned to algorithm-based therapy and 207 of 254 randomized to usual practice (82.0% vs 81.5%; difference, 0.5% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -6.2% to ∞]). Serious adverse events were reported in 32.5% of algorithm-based therapy patients and 28.3% of usual practice patients (difference, 4.2% [95% CI, -3.8% to 12.2%]). Among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia, mean duration of therapy was 4.4 days for algorithm-based therapy vs 6.2 days for usual practice (difference, -1.8 days [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.6]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with staphylococcal bacteremia, the use of an algorithm to guide testing and treatment compared with usual care resulted in a noninferior rate of clinical success. Rates of serious adverse events were not significantly different, but interpretation is limited by wide confidence intervals. Further research is needed to assess the utility of the algorithm.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191840.
| S-EPMC6233609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) have been progressively used in cancer treatment and produced unique toxicity profiles. This systematic review aims to comprehend the patterns and occurrence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) based on ICI.MethodsPICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2015 to 2020. Published clinical trials on ICI monotherapy, combined ICIs, and ICI plus other treatment with tabulated data on grade≥3 trAEs were included. Odds ratio (OR), χ2 tests were used to analyze for effect size and associations.ResultsThis review included 145 clinical trials involving 21786 patients. Grade 3-5 trAEs were more common with ICI when they were plused with other treatments compared with ICI monotherapy(54.3% versus 17.7%, 46.1%, p<0.05). Grade 3-5 trAEs were also more common with CTLA-4 mAbs compared with anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 (34.2% versus 15.1%, 13.6%, p<0.05). Hyperthyroidism (OR 3.8, 95%CI 1.7-8.6), nausea (OR 3.7, 95%CI 2.5-5.3), diarrhea (OR 2.7, 95%CI 2.2-3.2), colitis (OR 3.4, 95%CI 2.7-4.3), ALT increase (OR 4.9, 95%CI 3.9-6.1), AST increase (OR 3.8, 95%CI 3.0-4.9), pruritus (OR 2.4, 95%CI 1.5-3.9), rash (OR 2.8, 95%CI 2.1-3.8), fatigue (OR 2.8, 95%CI 2.2-3.7), decreased appetite (OR 2.4, 95%CI 1.5-3.8), and hypophysitis (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.2-3.3) were more frequent with combined ICIs. Diarrhea (OR 8.1, 95%CI 6.4-10.3), colitis (OR 12.2, 95%CI 8.7-17.1), ALT increase (OR 5.1, 95%CI 3.5-7.4), AST increase (OR 4.2, 95%CI 2.8-6.3), pruritus (OR 4.1, 95%CI 2.0-8.4), rash (OR 4.4, 95%CI 2.9-6.8), hypophysitis (OR 12.1, 95%CI 6.3-23.4) were more common with CTLA-4 mAbs; whereas pneumonitis (OR 4.7, 95% CI 2.1-10.3) were more frequent with PD-1 mAbs.ConclusionsDifferent immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with different treatment-related adverse events profiles. A comprehensive data in this systematic review will provide comprehensive information for clinicians.
| S-EPMC8144509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Pneumonia is the leading infectious killer of children. We conducted a double-blind, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing placebo to amoxicillin treatment for fast breathing pneumonia in HIV-negative children aged 2-59 months in Malawi. Occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs) during the trial were examined to assess disease progression, co-morbidities, recurrence of pneumonia and side effects of amoxicillin. Methods:Enrolled children with fast breathing for age and a history of cough <14 days or difficult breathing were randomised to either placebo or amoxicillin for 3 days, and followed for 14 days to track clinical characteristics and outcomes. Medical history, physical exam, laboratory results and any chest radiographs collected at screening, enrolment and during hospitalisation were evaluated. All SAE reports were reviewed for additional information regarding hospitalisation, course of treatment and outcome. Results:In total, 102/1126 (9.0%) enrolled children with fast breathing pneumonia were reported to have a SAE. Seventy-five per cent (n=77) of SAEs were pneumonia-related (p<0.01). Children<2 years of age represented the greatest proportion (61/77, 79.2%) of those with a pneumonia-related SAE. In the amoxicillin group, there were 46 SAEs and 5 (10.9%) cases were identified as possibly related to study drug (4 gastroenteritis and 1 fever). There were no life-threatening pneumonia SAEs or deaths in either group, and by the time of exit from the study, all children recovered without sequelae. Discussion:In this fast breathing pneumonia clinical trial, SAEs occurred infrequently in both the amoxicillin and placebo groups, and amoxicillin was well tolerated. Trial registration number:NCT02760420. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02760420?term=ginsburg&rank=9.
| S-EPMC6733335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMedical Emergency Teams (METs), also known as Rapid Response Teams, are recommended as a patient safety measure. A potential benefit of implementing an MET is the capacity to systematically assess preventable adverse events, which are defined as poor outcomes caused by errors or system design flaws. We describe how we used MET calls to systematically identify preventable adverse events in an academic tertiary care hospital, and describe our surveillance results.MethodsFor four weeks we collected standard information on consecutive MET calls. Within a week of the MET call, a multi-disciplinary team reviewed the information and rated the cause of the outcome using a previously developed rating scale. We classified the type and severity of the preventable adverse event.ResultsWe captured information on all 65 MET calls occurring during the study period. Of these, 16 (24%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16%-36%) were felt to be preventable adverse events. The most common cause of the preventable adverse events was error in providing appropriate therapy despite an accurate diagnosis. One service accounted for a disproportionate number of preventable adverse events (n = 5, [31%, 95% CI 14%-56%]).ConclusionsOur method of reviewing MET calls was easy to implement and yielded important results. Hospitals maintaining an MET can use our method as a preventable adverse event detection system at little additional cost.
| S-EPMC2750180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as "clinicaltrials.gov". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.
| S-EPMC8636814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ruxolitinib (INCB018424) is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor recently evaluated for the treatment of myelofibrosis (MF) in early- and advanced-phase clinical trials. In 2 recent communications that focused on short-term and long-term ruxolitinib treatment outcome, respectively, the drug was shown to be effective in controlling constitutional symptoms and splenomegaly but was also associated with important adverse effects, including moderate to severe thrombocytopenia and anemia. The most recent of the 2 communications focused on 51 Mayo Clinic patients who participated in the original phase 1/2 ruxolitinib clinical trial and highlighted a high treatment discontinuation rate (92% after a median time of 9.2 months), primarily for loss of treatment benefit but also because of drug-associated adverse effects. The report also discussed the occurrence of sometimes severe withdrawal symptoms during ruxolitinib treatment discontinuation. This "ruxolitinib withdrawal syndrome" was characterized by acute relapse of disease symptoms, accelerated splenomegaly, worsening of cytopenias, and occasional hemodynamic decompensation, including a septic shocklike syndrome. In the current sponsor-independent analysis, we describe the details of these events in 5 severely affected cases (11%) among 47 Mayo Clinic patients with MF in whom ruxolitinib therapy had been discontinued. Our experience calls for full disclosure of the ruxolitinib withdrawal syndrome to patients with MF before initiating ruxolitinib therapy, and treatment discontinuation must be done under close physician supervision and preferably in a tapering schedule.
| S-EPMC3228619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Traumatic brain injuries are complex situations in which the emergency medical services must quickly determine the risk of deterioration using minimal diagnostic methods. The aim of this study is to analyze whether the use of early warning scores can help with decision-making in these dynamic situations by determining the patients who need the intensive care unit. A prospective, multicentric cohort study without intervention was carried out on traumatic brain injury patients aged over 18 given advanced life support and taken to the hospital. Our study included a total of 209 cases. The total number of intensive-care unit admissions was 50 cases (23.9%). Of the scores analyzed, the National Early Warning Score2 was the best result presented with an area under the curve of 0.888 (0.81-0.94; p < 0.001) and an odds ratio of 25.4 (95% confidence interval (CI):11.2-57.5). The use of early warning scores (and specifically National Early Warning Score2) can help the emergency medical services to differentiate traumatic brain injury patients with a high risk of deterioration. The emergency medical services should use the early warning scores routinely in all cases for the early detection of high-risk situations.
| S-EPMC7084570 | biostudies-literature