Informing selection of drugs for COVID-19 treatment through adverse events analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Guo W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8263777 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionStatistical signal detection is a crucial tool for rapidly identifying potential risks associated with pharmaceutical products. The unprecedented environment created by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for vaccine surveillance predisposes commonly applied signal detection methodologies to a statistical issue called the masking effect, in which signals for a vaccine of interest are hidden by the presence of other reported vaccines. This masking effect may in turn limit or delay our understanding of the risks associated with new and established vaccines.ObjectiveThe aim is to investigate the problem of masking in the context of COVID-19 vaccine signal detection, assessing its impact, extent, and root causes.MethodsBased on data underlying the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, three commonly applied statistical signal detection methodologies, and a more advanced regression-based methodology, we investigate the temporal evolution of signals corresponding to five largely recognized adverse events and two potentially new adverse events.ResultsThe results demonstrate that signals of adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccines may be undetected or delayed due to masking when generated by methodologies currently utilized by pharmacovigilance organizations, and that a class of advanced methodologies can partially alleviate the problem. The results indicate that while masking is rare relative to all possible statistical associations, it is much more likely to occur in COVID-19 vaccine signaling, and that its extent, direction, impact, and roots are not static, but rather changing in accordance with the changing nature of data.ConclusionsMasking is an addressable problem that merits careful consideration, especially in situations such as COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance and other emergency use authorization products.
| S-EPMC9219360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOral adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccination have been sporadically reported during the previous months, warranting further investigation for their prevalence and suspected relationship with vaccine-elicited immune response.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data was conducted to evaluate AEs within the oral cavity (mucosa, tongue, lips, palate, dentition, salivary glands) and AEs involving taste and other sensations. Oral AEs reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccination (test group) and seasonal influenza vaccination (control group) were extracted and cross-tabulated to assess their relative prevalence.ResultsAmong the 128 solicited (suspected) oral AEs, oral paresthesia (0.872%) was most reported after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, followed by the swelling of lips (0.844%), ageusia (0.722%), oral hypoesthesia (0.648%), swollen tongue (0.628%), and dysgeusia (0.617%). The reported prevalence of oral AEs was higher in the COVID-19 vaccine group than in the seasonal influenza group. The distribution pattern of the most reported oral AEs was similar for both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. Female sex, older age (>39 years old), primer doses, and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines exhibited a higher reported prevalence of oral AEs.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, COVID-19 vaccines were found to be associated with rare oral AEs that are predominantly similar to those emerging following seasonal influenza vaccines. The most commonly reported oral AEs were oral paraesthesia (mouth-tingling), lip swelling, and ageusia, representing various pathophysiologic pathways that remain unclear. Taste-related AEs should be acknowledged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public should be adequately informed about a potential taste dysfunction after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Dentists and dental teams need to be aware of the prevalence, severity, and prognosis of oral AEs to inform their patients and increase public confidence in vaccines.
| S-EPMC9309565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted as a global pandemic. The World Health Organization announced the most promising drugs in SOLIDARITY for the global trial, and several other drugs are under investigation through ongoing clinical trials to prove the effectiveness and safety of potential therapeutics. Here, we depicted the safety profile of these drugs and investigated their associated adverse events (AEs). We observed the associated AEs in different organs/systems, especially in skin and subcutaneous tissue, immune system and musculoskeletal and connective tissue. Furthermore, we observed strong bias of AEs in different groups of sex and age. Our study provides knowledge of the toxicity of potential COVID-19 drugs. While these drugs hold promise to fight the global pandemic, healthcare providers should pay attention to AEs to maximize the treatment benefit while minimizing toxicity.
| S-EPMC7543289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a global health problem since December 2019. Vaccination has been widely considered the best way to prevent COVID-19 pandemic, but public concerns about the safety of vaccines remain. There have been many studies reporting adverse events in the vaccinated. However, to date, no meta-analysis of the association of COVID-19 vaccination with psychiatric adverse events has been conducted yet. In this meta-analysis, studies on depression, anxiety and distress after COVID-19 vaccination were searched in the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase from January 2020 to April 2022. The OR of depression in four studies with a total sample size of 462,406 is obtained as 0.88 (95% CI; 0.75, 1.03), and the OR of anxiety as 0.86 (95% CI; 0.71, 1.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. The mean difference of distress in two studies was -0.04 (95%CI; -0.05, -0.02; p < 0.0001). As a result of the moderator analysis, married people experienced less depression and anxiety after vaccination, and in White people, depression after vaccination was lower than others. We also found that people with a history of COVID-19 infection were more depressed and anxious after vaccination. We suggest that COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with a worsening of depression and anxiety.
| S-EPMC9861090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSafety surveillance of vaccines against COVID-19 is critical to ensure safety, maintain trust, and inform policy.ObjectivesTo monitor 23 serious outcomes weekly, using comprehensive health records on a diverse population.Design, setting, and participantsThis study represents an interim analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink. The 10 162 227 vaccine-eligible members of 8 participating US health plans were monitored with administrative data updated weekly and supplemented with medical record review for selected outcomes from December 14, 2020, through June 26, 2021.ExposuresReceipt of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccination, with a risk interval of 21 days for individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2 compared with an interval of 22 to 42 days for similar individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of serious outcomes, including acute myocardial infarction, Bell palsy, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Incidence of events that occurred among vaccine recipients 1 to 21 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression, adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, health plan, and calendar day. For a signal, a 1-sided P < .0048 was required to keep type I error below .05 during 2 years of weekly analyses. For 4 additional outcomes, including anaphylaxis, only descriptive analyses were conducted.ResultsA total of 11 845 128 doses of mRNA vaccines (57% BNT162b2; 6 175 813 first doses and 5 669 315 second doses) were administered to 6.2 million individuals (mean age, 49 years; 54% female individuals). The incidence of events per 1 000 000 person-years during the risk vs comparison intervals for ischemic stroke was 1612 vs 1781 (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08); for appendicitis, 1179 vs 1345 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93); and for acute myocardial infarction, 935 vs 1030 (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18). No vaccine-outcome association met the prespecified requirement for a signal. Incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.2-6.9) per million doses of BNT162b2 and 5.1 (95% CI, 3.3-7.6) per million doses of mRNA-1273.Conclusions and relevanceIn interim analyses of surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination. While CIs were wide for many outcomes, surveillance is ongoing.
| S-EPMC8511971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn early 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread worldwide, overwhelming hospitals with severely ill patients and posing the urgent need for clinical evidence to guide patient care. First treatment options available were repurposed drugs to fight inflammation, coagulopathy, and viral replication. A vast number of clinical studies were launched globally to test their efficacy and safety. Our analysis describes the development of global evidence on repurposed drugs, in particular corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients based on different study types. We track the incorporation of clinical data in international and national treatment guidelines and identify factors that characterize studies and analyses with the greatest impact on treatment recommendations.MethodsA literature search in MEDLINE was conducted to assess the clinical evidence on treatment with corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the first year of the pandemic. Adoption of the evidence from this clinical data in treatment guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO), Germany, and United States (US) was evaluated over time.ResultsWe identified 106 studies on corticosteroids, 141 studies on anticoagulants, and 115 studies on (hydroxy)chloroquine. Most studies were retrospective cohort studies; some were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and a few were platform trials. These studies were compared to studies directly and indirectly referred to in WHO (7 versions), German (5 versions), and US (21 versions) guidelines. We found that initially large, well-adjusted, mainly retrospective cohort studies and ultimately large platform trials or coordinated meta-analyses of RCTs provided best available clinical evidence supporting treatment recommendations.DiscussionParticularly early in the pandemic, evidence for the efficacy and safety of repurposed drugs was of low quality, since time and scientific rigor seemed to be competing factors. Pandemic preparedness, coordinated efforts, and combined analyses were crucial to generating timely and robust clinical evidence that informed national and international treatment guidelines on corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine. Multi-arm platform trials with master protocols and coordinated meta-analyses proved particularly successful, with researchers joining forces to answer the most pressing questions as quickly as possible.
| S-EPMC8896497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesBNT-162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines data regarding adverse events (AEs) are scarce. In this report, we aimed to describe fatal and non-fatal possible AEs after COVID-19 vaccine administration.MethodsAn observational multicenter study investigating the causes of emergency department visits and hospital admissions within 10 days of COVID-19 vaccination. Patients who received first or second doses of COVID-19 vaccines and presented to the emergency department (ED), as well as those admitted to the hospitals or intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Causes of ED, hospital, and ICU admissions and discharges were collected based on the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) coding system.ResultsBetween December 2020 and March 2021, 1842 patients visited the ED within 10 days of COVID-19 vaccine administration. The mean age was 70.3 years. Overall, 1221 patients presented after the first dose of the vaccine and 653 after the second dose. Trauma (14.9%), hypertensive emergency/urgency (7.8%), generalized pain and arthralgia (5.7%), and chest pain (4.4%) were the most common causes of presentation to the ED. Of all ED presentations, mortality rate was at 2.2% (41 patients) with a median follow-up time of 68.0 days, versus 2.6% in unvaccinated ED patients. Postvaccination acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (46.3%), septic shock (24.4%), and cardiogenic shock (12.2%) were the most common causes of death.ConclusionAlthough reported AEs are not necessarily caused by the vaccination, this study provides further information about possible AEs after COVID-19 immunization, especially those requiring hospital admission. This study also supports prior data that serious AEs post vaccination are much lower than primary COVID-19 infections. Further studies are needed to investigate causalities between vaccines and reported AEs across all age groups.
| S-EPMC8514147 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8013663 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10897819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe sought to develop an automatable score to predict hospitalization, critical illness, or death in patients at risk for COVID-19 presenting for urgent care during the Massachusetts outbreak.MethodsSingle-center study of adult outpatients seen in respiratory illness clinics (RICs) or the emergency department (ED), including development (n = 9381, March 7-May 2) and prospective (n = 2205, May 3-14) cohorts. Data was queried from Partners Enterprise Data Warehouse. Outcomes were hospitalization, critical illness or death within 7 days. We developed the COVID-19 Acuity Score (CoVA) using automatically extracted data from the electronic medical record and learning-to-rank ordinal logistic regression modeling. Calibration was assessed using predicted-to-observed event ratio (E/O). Discrimination was assessed by C-statistics (AUC).ResultsIn the development cohort, 27.3%, 7.2%, and 1.1% of patients experienced hospitalization, critical illness, or death, respectively; and in the prospective cohort, 26.1%, 6.3%, and 0.5%. CoVA showed excellent performance in the development cohort (concurrent validation) for hospitalization (E/O: 1.00, AUC: 0.80); for critical illness (E/O: 1.00, AUC: 0.82); and for death (E/O: 1.00, AUC: 0.87). Performance in the prospective cohort (prospective validation) was similar for hospitalization (E/O: 1.01, AUC: 0.76); for critical illness (E/O 1.03, AUC: 0.79); and for death (E/O: 1.63, AUC=0.93). Among 30 predictors, the top five were age, diastolic blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation, COVID-19 testing status, and respiratory rate.ConclusionsCoVA is a prospectively validated automatable score to assessing risk for adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection in the outpatient setting.
| S-EPMC7325189 | biostudies-literature