Dataset Information

Adverse events associated with home use of mouthrinses: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background:Poor oral hygiene is strongly associated with oral and systemic diseases. Alongside mechanical tooth cleaning, the adjunctive use of mouthrinses has been widely advocated. Although research on the efficacy of various mouthrinse formulations is very active, there are a lack of conclusive data regarding their adverse effects. Methods:We undertook a systematic review in accordance wih PRISMA guidelines of electronic databases of clinical trials of any duration with daily home use of mouthwashes, presenting clinical and subjective side effects (PROSPERO registration: CRD42016054037). Results:After evaluating 614 titles and abstracts, 154 studies were selected for full-text analysis; 85 final papers were included. Based on the active ingredient in the test product, nine categories were created: cetyl pyridinium chloride, essential oils, chlorhexidine, triclosan, natural products, diclofenac, fluorides, delmopinol, and miscellaneous active substances. Most of the studies were of short duration (less than 6 months) with a defective 'methods' description; the reporting of adverse events often being overlooked. Both local morphological (oral mucosa and dental-crown staining, mucosal lesions) and functional (taste modifications, abnormal oral sensation) alterations were reported. Tooth staining was the most commonly listed adverse event, but it was quantitatively assessed only in a very small number of papers; most studies relied on patient reports. Staining was time associated; the longer the study, the higher its reported incidence and severity. Conclusions:The reduced report of side effects may partly be due to a lack of an objective measure and lack of general guidelines that demand studies report their adverse events. The most frequently reported adverse effect was teeth staining. As in most studies, the effect was associated with trial duration; clinical trials should be of sufficient duration. New investigations meeting the suggested criteria of a minimal duration of 6 months should be planned.

SUBMITTER: Tartaglia GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6759706 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adverse events associated with home use of mouthrinses: a systematic review.

Tartaglia Gianluca M GM Tadakamadla Santosh Kumar SK Connelly Stephen Thaddeus ST Sforza Chiarella C Martín Conchita C

Therapeutic advances in drug safety 20190923

<h4>Background</h4>Poor oral hygiene is strongly associated with oral and systemic diseases. Alongside mechanical tooth cleaning, the adjunctive use of mouthrinses has been widely advocated. Although research on the efficacy of various mouthrinse formulations is very active, there are a lack of conclusive data regarding their adverse effects.<h4>Methods</h4>We undertook a systematic review in accordance wih PRISMA guidelines of electronic databases of clinical trials of any duration with daily h ...[more]

PMID: 31579502

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cardiovascular adverse events (CVAE) with carfilzomib in patients with multiple myeloma can be potentially life-threatening and remain incompletely characterized. We performed the first systematic review and meta-analysis of carfilzomib-associated CVAE.To determine the incidence of carfilzomib-associated CVAE and to compare the rates of carfilzomib CVAE among different doses and companion therapies.PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov were queried for the keywords "carfilzomib," "Kyprolis," and "PX-171" through January 1, 2017.Phase 1 to 3 prospective clinical trials of carfilzomib in patients with multiple myeloma with evaluable toxic effects data were eligible for meta-analysis.Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Pooled incidence rates and relative risks (for randomized trials) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess study-level characteristics associated with CVAE.Cardiovascular adverse events were defined as heart failure, hypertension, ischemia, and arrhythmia. All-grade and grades 3 or higher AEs and study characteristics were recorded.A total of 514 studies were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 24 studies were eligible, including a total of 2594 patients with multiple myeloma. All-grade and grades 3 and higher CVAE were seen in 617 (18.1%) and 274 (8.2%), respectively. Phase 2 or 3 studies and carfilzomib doses of 45 mg/m2 or higher were associated with high-grade CVAE. Median age older than 65 years, prior myeloma therapies, and concurrent myeloma therapies were not associated with CVAE. For the 3 randomized clinical trials, the summary relative risk of all-grade and grade 3 or higher CVAE for patients receiving carfilzomib compared with noncarfilzomib-receiving control patients were 1.8 and 2.2, respectively.Carfilzomib was associated with a significant incidence of CVAE, with higher rates seen with higher doses of carfilzomib. Phase 1 studies may be underdetecting CVAE. Future studies are needed to identify patients at high risk for CVAE, develop optimal monitoring strategies, and explore strategies to mitigate these risks.

Project description:To examine the risk of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation.Meta-analysis comparing study effects using four summary estimates.Medline, Cochrane Library, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists of identified articles.We included randomised controlled trials of current tobacco users of adult age comparing use of varenicline with an inactive control and reporting adverse events. We defined treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events as occurring during drug treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation, and included any ischaemic or arrhythmic adverse cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularisation, coronary artery disease, arrhythmias, transient ischaemic attacks, stroke, sudden death or cardiovascular related death, or congestive heart failure).We identified 22 trials; all were double blinded and placebo controlled; two included participants with active cardiovascular disease and 11 enrolled participants with a history of cardiovascular disease. Rates of treatment emergent, cardiovascular serious adverse events were 0.63% (34/5431) in the varenicline groups and 0.47% (18/3801) in the placebo groups. The summary estimate for the risk difference, 0.27% (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.63; P = 0.15), based on all 22 trials, was neither clinically nor statistically significant. For comparison, the relative risk (1.40, 0.82 to 2.39; P = 0.22), Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (1.41, 0.82 to 2.42; P = 0.22), and Peto odds ratio (1.58, 0.90 to 2.76; P = 0.11), all based on 14 trials with at least one event, also indicated a non-significant difference between varenicline and placebo groups.This meta--analysis--which included all trials published to date, focused on events occurring during drug exposure, and analysed findings using four summary estimates-found no significant increase in cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use. For rare outcomes, summary estimates based on absolute effects are recommended and estimates based on the Peto odds ratio should be avoided.

Project description:BackgroundMetamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.ObjectiveTo determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.ResultsOf the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.ConclusionFor short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.

Project description:The aim of this study was to review empirical studies examining associations between candidate genes and adverse events (AEs) from methylphenidate (MPH) use in children and adolescents. The PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception until March 2017. We included empirically based articles on pharmacogenetic studies in 0-17-year-old patients that investigated associations between specific candidate genes, their polymorphisms, and reported AEs. We extracted information about study design, setting, type of AE reporter, studied genes and their polymorphisms, age and gender, administered doses, method of genotyping, outcome measures, and main findings. A total of nine articles reporting information about four double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over studies and five open-label cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies were published from 2006 onward and included a total of 998 patients (3-17-year-olds) diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Studies predominantly involved males and lasted from 1 to 12 weeks. Studies used polymerase chain reaction and single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping methodology. Reported AEs were significantly associated with the following genes: appetite reduction (CES1*G); buccal-lingual movements (T1065G); diastolic blood pressure (ADRA2A Mspl C/C-GC); emotionality (DAT1*9/9); irritability (SNAP25 T1065G); picking (DRD4*7/DRD4*4); social withdrawal (DRD4*7/DRD4*4); somatic complaints (DAT1*10/10); tics (5-HTTLRP*S/L*L/L; SNAP25 T1065G); sadness (CES1*rsl12443580); and vegetative symptoms (5-HTTLPR). In conclusion, only few MPH pediatric pharmacogenetic studies were located, and large between-study heterogeneity was found. Studies were of naturalistic design and of short duration. They included small patient samples, poorly standardized treatment regimens, and limited outcome assessments. In the future, more pharmacogenomic studies in ADHD are needed, preferably using randomized, controlled study designs and of longer duration (more than 6 months).

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with use of varenicline compared with placebo in randomised controlled trials.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis comparing study effects using two summary estimates in fixed effects models, risk differences, and Peto odds ratios.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials with a placebo comparison group that reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events (depression, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, suicide, insomnia, sleep disorders, abnormal dreams, somnolence, fatigue, anxiety) and death. Studies that did not involve human participants, did not use the maximum recommended dose of varenicline (1 mg twice daily), and were cross over trials were excluded.ResultsIn the 39 randomised controlled trials (10,761 participants), there was no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide (odds ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 8.57), suicidal ideation (0.58, 0.28 to 1.20), depression (0.96, 0.75 to 1.22), irritability (0.98, 0.81 to 1.17), aggression (0.91, 0.52 to 1.59), or death (1.05, 0.47 to 2.38) in the varenicline users compared with placebo users. Varenicline was associated with an increased risk of sleep disorders (1.63, 1.29 to 2.07), insomnia (1.56, 1.36 to 1.78), abnormal dreams (2.38, 2.05 to 2.77), and fatigue (1.28, 1.06 to 1.55) but a reduced risk of anxiety (0.75, 0.61 to 0.93). Similar findings were observed when risk differences were reported. There was no evidence for a variation in depression and suicidal ideation by age group, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, presence or absence of psychiatric illness, and type of study sponsor (that is, pharmaceutical industry or other).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found no evidence of an increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide, suicidal ideation, depression, or death with varenicline. These findings provide some reassurance for users and prescribers regarding the neuropsychiatric safety of varenicline. There was evidence that varenicline was associated with a higher risk of sleep problems such as insomnia and abnormal dreams. These side effects, however, are already well recognised.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2014:CRD42014009224.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).Review methodsDatabases were searched for systematic reviews having an adverse event as the main outcome, published from January 2008 to April 2011. Adverse events included an adverse reaction, harms, or complications associated with any healthcare intervention. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the complete safety profile of an intervention were also included. We developed a list of 37 items to measure the quality of reporting on harms in each review; data were collected as dichotomous outcomes ("yes" or "no" for each item).ResultsOf 4644 reviews identified, 309 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses primarily assessing harms (13 from CDSR; 296 from DARE). Despite a short time interval, the comparison between the years of 2008 and 2010-11 showed no difference on the quality of reporting over time (P=0.079). Titles in fewer than half the reviews (proportion of reviews 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.52)) did not mention any harm related terms. Almost one third of DARE reviews (0.26 (0.22 to 0.31)) did not clearly define the adverse events reviewed, nor did they specify the study designs selected for inclusion in their methods section. Almost half of reviews (n=170) did not consider patient risk factors or length of follow-up when reviewing harms of an intervention. Of 67 reviews of complications related to surgery or other procedures, only four (0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)) reported professional qualifications of the individuals involved. The overall, unweighted, proportion of reviews with good reporting was 0.56 (0.55 to 0.57); corresponding proportions were 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57) in 2008, 0.55 (0.54 to 0.57) in 2009, and 0.57 (0.55 to 0.58) in 2010-11.ConclusionSystematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately. Improving reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews is an important step towards a balanced assessment of an intervention.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colchicine is a widely used drug to treat inflammatory diseases. Due to its long historical use in medicine, controlled clinical trials have been small and there remains some caution with the use of this drug in patients with co-morbidities. The aim of the study is to systematically examine the side effect profile of colchicine in controlled clinical trials across all published indications. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA methodology. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for double-blind controlled trials of oral colchicine in adult patients that reported adverse event data. Meta-analyses were used to determine the relative risk (RR) of adverse events in colchicine users compared to comparator groups. RESULTS:A total of 4915 studies were initially identified and after exclusions, 35 randomised controlled trials with placebo (n =?35) or active comparators (n =?5) were included. The most common diseases studied were gout, liver cirrhosis and pericarditis. There were a total of 8659 pooled participants, 4225 participants were randomised to receive colchicine, 3956 to placebo and 411 to an active comparator. Diarrhoea was reported in 17.9% of colchicine users versus 13.1% in comparator groups (RR 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6, 3.7). Any gastrointestinal event was reported in 17.6% of colchicine users and 13.1% of comparators (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.3). Adverse liver events were reported in 1.9% of colchicine users versus 1.1% in the comparator groups (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9, 3.0). Muscle events were reported in 4.2% of colchicine users and 3.3% in the comparator groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8, 1.9). Haematology events were reported in 0.6% of colchicine users and 0.4% of comparator groups (RR 1.34 (0.64, 2.82). No study reported neuropathy events. Other sensory events were reported in 1.1% of colchicine users and 1.5% of comparator groups (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.3, 6.7). Infectious events were reported in 0.4% of colchicine users and 2.1% of comparator groups (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7, 1.5). No study reported death as an adverse event. CONCLUSION:Colchicine increases the rate of diarrhoea and gastrointestinal adverse events but does not increase the rate of liver, sensory, muscle, infectious or haematology adverse events or death.

Dataset Information

Adverse events associated with home use of mouthrinses: a systematic review.

Publications

Adverse events associated with home use of mouthrinses: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets