Repeated intravenous doses of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells for bronchopulmonary dysplasia: results of a phase 1 clinical trial with 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is a lack of effective treatments or preventive strategies for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Pre-clinical studies with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have yielded encouraging results. The safety of administering repeated intravenous doses of umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) has not yet been tested in extremely-low-gestational-age newborns (ELGANs). AIMS: to test the safety and feasibility of administering three sequential intravenous doses of UC-MSCs every 7 days to ELGANs at risk of developing BPD. METHODS: In this phase 1 clinical trial, we recruited ELGANs (birth weight ≤1250 g and ≤28 weeks in gestational age [GA]) who were on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with FiO2 ≥ 0.3 at postnatal days 7-14. Three doses of 5 × 106/kg of UC-MSCs were intravenously administered at weekly intervals. Adverse effects and prematurity-related morbidities were recorded. RESULTS: From April 2019 to July 2020, 10 patients were recruited with a mean GA of 25.2 ± 0.8 weeks and a mean birth weight of 659.8 ± 153.8 g. All patients received three intravenous UC-MSC doses. The first dose was administered at a mean of 16.6 ± 2.9 postnatal days. All patients were diagnosed with BPD. All patients were discharged from the hospital. No deaths or any serious adverse events related to the infusion of UC-MSCs were observed during administration, hospital stays or at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of repeated intravenous infusion of UC-MSCs in ELGANs at a high risk of developing BPD was feasible and safe in the short- and mid-term follow-up.

Rates and Impact of Serious Adverse Events after Endovascular Thrombectomy among Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Complications or serious adverse events (SAEs) are common in the treatment of patients with large vessel occlusion stroke. There has been limited study of the impact of SAEs for patients after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). The goal of this study was to characterize the rates and clinical impact of SAEs following EVT. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed using pooled databases of the "DEVT" and "RESCUE BT" trials. SAEs were designated as symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, brain herniation or craniectomy, respiratory failure, circulatory failure, pneumonia, deep venous thrombosis, and systemic bleeding. The primary endpoint was functional independence (modified Rankin scale score 0-2 within 90 days). Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the predictors and associations between SAEs and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1,182 enrolled patients, 402 (34%) had a procedural complication and 745 (63%) had 1,404 SAE occurrences with 4.65% in-hospital mortality. The three most frequent SAEs were pneumonia (620, 52.5%), systemic bleeding (174, 14.7%), and respiratory failure (173, 14.6%). Pneumonia, systemic bleeding, or deep venous thrombosis was less life-threatening. Patients with advanced age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28 [95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.43]), higher NIHSS (1.09 [1.06-1.11]), occlusion site (middle cerebral artery-M1 vs. internal carotid artery [ICA]: 0.75 [0.53-1.04]; M2 vs. ICA: 1.30 [0.80-2.12]), longer procedure time (1.01 [1.00-1.01]), and unsuccessful vessel recanalization (1.79 [1.06-2.94]) were more likely to experience SAEs. Compared with no SAE, patients with SAEs had lower odds of functional independence (0.46 [0.40-0.54]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, SAEs diagnosed following thrombectomy in patients with stroke were common (more than 60%) and associated with functional dependence. Patients with advanced age, higher NIHSS, longer procedure time, and failed recanalization were more likely to experience SAEs. There was no statistical difference in the risk of SAEs among patients with M1 and M2 occluded compared with those ICA occluded. An understanding of the prevalence and predictors of SAEs could alert clinicians to the estimated risk of an SAE for a patient after EVT.

Serious adverse events reporting in recent randomised clinical trials in intensive care medicine - A methodological study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Serious adverse events (SAEs) are common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Reporting of SAEs in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) varies why underreporting is likely. We aim to describe the reporting of SAEs from 2020 onwards and to illustrate the recent reporting of SAEs published in major medical journals. METHODS: We will conduct a methodological study assessing pharmacological interventions in RCTs including adult ICU patients. We will search 10 general medical and critical care journals in PubMed. We will include all RCTs published from 2020 onwards. The primary research question is how many RCTs report SAEs in the primary publication. Secondary research questions include how SAEs are reported in the primary publication either as (1) proportion of patients experiencing one or more SAE, (2) all single events occurred, or (3) both strategies combined. We will assess the association between the proportion of patients with reported SAEs and the following trial characteristics: multicentred versus single-centre RCTs, industry-sponsored versus academic-sponsored, published trial protocol versus unpublished work, blinding, trials sample size, and RCTs focusing on COVID-19 patients versus other populations. DISCUSSION: The outlined methodological study will provide important information on the reporting of SAEs in recent drug trials in adult ICU patients.

Estimation of the maximum potential cost saving from reducing serious adverse events in hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: The increasing use of advanced medical technologies to detect adverse events, for instance, artificial intelligence-assisted technologies, has shown promise in improving various aspects within health care but may also come with substantial expenses. Therefore, understanding the potential economic benefits can guide decision-making processes regarding implementation. We aimed to estimate the potential cost savings associated with reducing length of stay and avoiding readmissions within the framework of an artificial intelligence-assisted vital signs monitoring system. METHODS: We used data from Danish national registries and coarsened exact matching to estimate the difference in length of stay and probability of readmission among adult in-hospital patients exposed to and not exposed to serious adverse events. We used these estimates to calculate the maximum potential savings that could be achieved by early detection of adverse events to reduce length of stay and avoid readmissions. RESULTS: Patients exposed to serious adverse events during admission had 2.4 (95% CI: 2.4-2.5) additional hospital bed days and had 14% (95% CI 11%-17%) higher odds of readmissions compared with patients not exposed to such events. A base case scenario yielded maximum potential savings if one patient avoided a serious adverse event of EUR 2040 due to reduced length of stay and EUR 43 due to avoidance of readmissions caused by serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Reductions in serious adverse events are associated with decreased healthcare costs due to reduced length of stay and avoided readmissions. Artificial intelligence-assisted vital signs monitoring systems are one potential approach to reduce serious adverse events, however, the ability of this technology to reduce adverse events remains unclear. Comprehensive prospective analyses of such systems including the intervention and implementation costs are necessary to understand their full economic impact.

Association of Calf Circumference, Hand Grip Strength, and Physical Performance with Serious Adverse Events in Patients with Sub-Acute Stroke Hospitalized for Rehabilitation: An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether calf circumference (CC), hand grip strength (HGS), and physical performance are linked to the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients with sub-acute stroke. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Stroke patients admitted for rehabilitation hospital. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of SAEs, such as death, cardiovascular events including recurrent stroke, and conditions requiring transfer to another hospital for specialized care or immediate treatment for an acute illness during hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 341 patients (median age: 74 years) participated in this study, with 232 patients (68%) exhibiting low physical performance. In the adjusted model, low physical performance was significantly associated with SAEs (HR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.04-8.68, p = 0.042). However, low CC (HR = 1.60, 95% CI = 0.76-3.38, p = 0.219) and low HGS (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.39-2.42, p = 0.960) did not show an independent association. CONCLUSION: Low physical performance was independently associated with the occurrence of SAEs during hospitalization for rehabilitation in patients with sub-acute stroke.

Excessive Oxygen Administration in High-Risk Patients Admitted to Medical and Surgical Wards Monitored by Wireless Pulse Oximeter.

The monitoring of oxygen therapy when patients are admitted to medical and surgical wards could be important because exposure to excessive oxygen administration (EOA) may have fatal consequences. We aimed to investigate the association between EOA, monitored by wireless pulse oximeter, and nonfatal serious adverse events (SAEs) and mortality within 30 days. We included patients in the Capital Region of Copenhagen between 2017 and 2018. Patients were hospitalized due to acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) or after major elective abdominal cancer surgery, and all were treated with oxygen supply. Patients were divided into groups by their exposure to EOA: no exposure, exposure for 1-59 min or exposure over 60 min. The primary outcome was SAEs or mortality within 30 days. We retrieved data from 567 patients for a total of 43,833 h, of whom, 63% were not exposed to EOA, 26% had EOA for 1-59 min and 11% had EOA for ≥60 min. Nonfatal SAEs or mortality within 30 days developed in 24%, 12% and 22%, respectively, and the adjusted odds ratio for this was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-1.01) for every 10 min. increase in EOA, without any subgroup effects. In conclusion, we did not observe higher frequencies of nonfatal SAEs or mortality within 30 days in patients exposed to excessive oxygen administration.

Prognostic value of heart rate variability for risk of serious adverse events in continuously monitored hospital patients.

Technological advances allow continuous vital sign monitoring at the general ward, but traditional vital signs alone may not predict serious adverse events (SAE). This study investigated continuous heart rate variability (HRV) monitoring's predictive value for SAEs in acute medical and major surgical patients. Data was collected from four prospective observational studies and two randomized controlled trials using a single-lead ECG. The primary outcome was any SAE, secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and specific non-fatal SAE groups, all within 30 days. Subgroup analyses of medical and surgical patients were performed. The primary analysis compared the last 24 h preceding an SAE with the last 24 h of measurements in patients without an SAE. The area under a receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) quantified predictive performance, interpretated as low prognostic ability (0.5-0.7), moderate prognostic ability (0.7-0.9), or high prognostic ability (> 0.9). Of 1402 assessed patients, 923 were analysed, with 297 (32%) experiencing at least one SAE. The best performing threshold had an AUROC of 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.71) for predicting cardiovascular SAEs. In the surgical subgroup, the best performing threshold had an AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.81) for neurologic SAE prediction. In the medical subgroup, thresholds for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular, infectious, and neurologic SAEs had moderate prognostic ability, and the best performing threshold had an AUROC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.95) for predicting neurologic SAEs. Predicting SAEs based on the accumulated time below thresholds for individual continuously measured HRV parameters demonstrated overall low prognostic ability in high-risk hospitalized patients. Certain HRV thresholds had moderate prognostic ability for prediction of specific SAEs in the medical subgroup.

Fournier's Gangrene as an Adverse Event Following Treatment with Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors.

We present the case of a 51-year-old male with known congestive heart failure and acute myocarditis who presented to the emergency department (ED) with swollen testicles and urinary symptoms two weeks after the initiation of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor treatment. Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) scan was consistent with the diagnosis of Fournier's gangrene (FG). Intravenous antibiotics were administered and surgical exploratory intervention and excision of necrotic tissue were performed, stopping the evolution of necrotizing fasciitis. FG, a reported adverse event, may rarely occur when SGLT2 inhibitors are administered in patients with diabetes. To our knowledge, there have been no reported cases of FG in Romania since SLGT2 inhibitors were approved. The distinguishing feature of this case is that the patient was not diabetic, which emphasizes that patients without diabetes who are treated for heart failure with SGLT2 inhibitors may also be at risk of developing genitourinary infections. The association of predisposing factors may have contributed to the development of FG in this case and even though the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors outweigh the risks, serious adverse events need to be voluntarily reported in order to intervene promptly, verify the relationship, and minimize the risk of bias.

Monitoring of Adverse Events in Recipients of the 2-Dose Ebola Vaccine Regimen of Ad26.ZEBOV Followed by MVA-BN-Filo in the UMURINZI Ebola Vaccination Campaign.

BACKGROUND: From 2019 to 2021, Rwandan residents of the border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo were offered the Ad26.ZEBOV (adenovirus type 26 vector vaccine encoding Ebola virus glycoprotein) and MVA-BN-Filo (modified vaccinia virus Ankara vector vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola, Sudan, Marburg, and nucleoprotein from Tai Forest viruses) Ebola vaccine regimen. METHODS: Nonpregnant persons aged ≥2 years were eligible. Unsolicited adverse events (UAEs) were reported through phone calls or visits, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded per International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use guidelines. RESULTS: Following Ad26.ZEBOV, UAEs were reported by 0.68% of 216 113 vaccinees and were more common in younger children (aged 2-8 years, 1.2%) compared with older children (aged 9-17 years, 0.4%) and adults (aged ≥18 years, 0.7%). Fever and headache were the most reported symptoms. All 17 SAEs related to vaccine were in children aged 2-8 years (10 postvaccination febrile convulsions ± gastroenteritis and 7 fever and/or gastroenteritis). The incidence of febrile seizures was 8 of 26 062 (0.031%) prior to initiation of routine acetaminophen in December 2020 and 2 of 15 897 (0.013%) thereafter. Nonobstetric SAEs were similar in males and females. All 20 deaths were unrelated to vaccination. Young girls and adult women with UAEs were less likely to receive the second dose than those without UAEs. Seven unrelated SAEs occurred in 203 267 MVA-BN-Filo recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Postvaccination febrile convulsions in young children were rare but not previously described after Ad26.ZEBOV and were reduced with routine acetaminophen. The regimen was otherwise safe and well-tolerated.

Evaluation of toxicities for intravesical drugs in phase 1 bladder cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: Improving clinical trial design is important for optimizing approval of safe and effective drugs. Phase 1 clinical trials seek to determine phase 2 doses by investigating predefined dose-limiting toxicities. Traditional definitions of dose-limiting toxicity may not be applicable to intravesical therapies for bladder cancer. This study compared the frequency of dose-limiting toxicities and serious adverse events in bladder cancer trials for intravesical therapies to other routes of administration. METHODS: Studies were abstracted from ClinicalTrials.gov and reconciled with a PubMed search. Primary and secondary end points were predefined before data abstraction, and the primary end point was subject-level dose-limiting toxicity rate. Fisher exact tests were performed with p < .05 designated as significant. RESULTS: Eighteen intravesical studies and 24 studies with other routes of administration (the per os/intravenous/intramuscular [PO/IV/IM] group) were identified. Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in 38.9% of intravesical studies, affecting 3.29% of subjects, compared with 30.0% of PO/IV/IM studies representing 4.19% of subjects (p = .52 for study-level and p = .60 for subject-level comparisons). Serious adverse events occurred in 53.9% of intravesical studies in 10.3% of subjects versus 91.0% of studies reporting serious adverse events affecting 41.4% of subjects in the PO/IV/IM group (p = .03 for subject-level and p < .0001 for study-level comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in subject-level dose-limiting toxicity rate between intravesical and PO/IV/IM bladder cancer trials. The serious adverse event rate was lower in the intravesical group. Heterogeneity of dose-limiting toxicity definition may affect interpretation of toxicity in phase 1 bladder cancer clinical trials studying different routes of administration. LAY SUMMARY: Bladder cancer is a common cancer type that may be treated with therapies that are instilled into the bladder and act locally, called intravesical therapies. This study used publicly available regulatory data from early phase clinical trials to determine whether measures of tolerability used in clinical trials are applicable to intravesical therapies for bladder cancer.

Incidence of serious adverse events caused by tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment following immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced NSCLC patients with oncogenic driver alterations.

BACKGROUND: Sequential tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) following immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) increases the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). However, the factors and the types of TKIs that affect the incidence of SAEs remain unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who received sequential TKIs following ICIs between November 2015 and April 2021. All AEs were evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) ver 5.0. RESULTS: Among 1,638 NSCLC patients who received ICIs, 63 patients received sequential TKIs following ICIs. The types of TKIs included EGFR-TKIs in 48 patients, ALK-TKIs in 10 patients, and others in 5 patients. The median dosing interval was 57 days (range: 7-698). Eighteen (28.6%) patients developed SAEs (Grade 3/4 or hospitalized). The incidence of SAEs and withdrawal of TKIs due to AEs were significantly higher in patients (n = 40) who initiated TKI treatment within 3 months after ICIs than in patients (n = 23) who initiated TKI treatment 3 months after ICIs (SAEs, 40.0% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.01; withdrawal rate: 57.5% vs. 21.7%, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the incidence of SAEs and withdrawal rate due to AEs between EGFR-TKIs and other TKIs (SAE, 22.9% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.20; withdrawal rate: 41.7% vs. 53.3%, p = 0.55). CONCLUSION: The dosing interval from last ICI to the initiation of TKI treatment can affects the incidence of SAEs and the withdrawal rate due to AEs regardless of the types of TKIs.

Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: updates to a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The IL-23 p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab has been previously compared with other targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA). The objective of this NMA update was to include new guselkumab COSMOS trial data, and two key comparators: the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials up to February 2021. A hand-search identified newer agents up to July 2021. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on ACR response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: For ACR 20, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) and every 4 weeks (Q4W) were comparable (i.e. overlap in credible intervals) to most other agents, including risankizumab, upadacitinib, subcutaneous TNF inhibitors and most IL-17A inhibitors. For PASI 90, guselkumab Q8W and Q4W were better than multiple agents, including subcutaneous TNF and JAK inhibitors. For vdH-S, guselkumab Q8W was similar to risankizumab, while guselkumab Q4W was better; both doses were comparable to most other agents. Most agents had comparable SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab demonstrates better skin efficacy than most other targeted PsA therapies, including upadacitinib. For vdH-S, both guselkumab doses are comparable to most treatments, with both doses ranking higher than most, including upadacitinib and risankizumab. Both guselkumab doses demonstrate comparable ACR responses to most other agents, including upadacitinib and risankizumab, and rank favourably in the network for SAEs.

Improving the Approach to Defining, Classifying, Reporting and Monitoring Adverse Events in Seriously Ill Older Adults: Recommendations from a Multi-stakeholder Convening.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are needed to study topics relevant to older adults with serious illness. Investigators conducting clinical trials with this population are challenged by how to appropriately define, classify, report, and monitor serious and non-serious adverse events (SAEs/AEs), given that some traditionally reported AEs (pressure ulcers, delirium) and SAEs (death, hospitalization) are common in persons with serious illness, and may be consistent with their goals of care. OBJECTIVES: A multi-stakeholder group convened to establish greater clarity on and new approaches to address this critical issue. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two study investigators, members of regulatory and sponsor agencies, and patient stakeholders took part. APPROACH: The group met virtually four times and, using a collaborative approach, conducted a survey, select interviews, and reviewed regulatory guidance to collectively define the problem and identify a new approach. RESULTS: SAE/AE challenges fell into two areas: (1) definitions and classifications, including (a) implausible relationships, (b) misalignment with patient-centered care goals, and (c) well-known associations, and (2) reporting and monitoring, including (a) limited guidance, (b) inconsistent standards across regulators, and (c) Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member knowledge gaps. Problems largely reflected practice norms rather than regulatory requirements that already support context-specific and aggregate reporting. Approaches can be improved by adopting principles that better align strategies for addressing adverse events with the type of intervention being tested, favoring routine and aggregate over expedited reporting, and prioritizing how SAE/AEs relate to patient-centered care goals. Reporting plans and decisions should follow an algorithm underpinned by these principles. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the proposed approach-and supporting it with education and better alignment with regulatory guidance and procedures-could improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials' safety involving older adults with serious illness and other vulnerable populations.

Effect of a Predictive Analytics-Targeted Program in Patients on Opioids: a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Risk of overdose, suicide, and other adverse outcomes are elevated among sub-populations prescribed opioid analgesics. To address this, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM)-a provider-facing dashboard that utilizes predictive analytics to stratify patients prescribed opioids based on risk for overdose/suicide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the case review mandate on serious adverse events (SAEs) and all-cause mortality among high-risk Veterans. DESIGN: A 23-month stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in all 140 VHA medical centers between 2018 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 44,042 patients actively prescribed opioid analgesics with high STORM risk scores (i.e., percentiles 1% to 5%) for an overdose or suicide-related event. INTERVENTION: A mandate requiring providers to perform case reviews on opioid analgesic-prescribed patients at high risk of overdose/suicide. MAIN MEASURES: Nine serious adverse events (SAEs), case review completion, number of risk mitigation strategies, and all-cause mortality. KEY RESULTS: Mandated review inclusion was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality within 4 months of inclusion (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). There was no detectable effect on SAEs. Stepped-wedge analyses found that mandated review patients were five times more likely to receive a case review than non-mandated patients with similar risk (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.64-7.23) and received more risk mitigation strategies than non-mandated patients (0.498; CI: 0.39-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Among VHA patients prescribed opioid analgesics, identifying high risk patients and mandating they receive an interdisciplinary case review was associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality. Results suggest that providers can leverage predictive analytic-targeted population health approaches and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16012111.

A comprehensive evaluation of the safety of ipilimumab, nivolumab and their combination therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the landscape of management of advanced cancers. It is imperative to evaluate the safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab based therapies. This study was aimed to assess the comparative safety profiles of ipilimumab, nivolumab and their combinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials of ipilimumab and nivolumab. The outcome measures were treatment-related adverse events [TRAEs], TRAEs of grade 3-5, treatment discontinuation due to TRAEs [TDTRAEs], TDTRAEs of grade 3-5, serious adverse events [SAEs] and SAEs of grades 3-5. We performed a network meta-analysis using the Bayesian approach in R version 4.0.3. RESULTS: We identified 42 RCTs for final analysis. The treatment ranking for TRAEs revealed that nivolumab 240 mg/week and nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week were safer (0.84 and 0.81 in SUCRA); for TRAEs of grade 3-5, nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week and nivolumab 240 mg/week were safer (0.83 and 0.75 in SUCRA); for TDTRAEs nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week and ipilimumab in combination with other drugs were safer (0.87 and 0.64 in SUCRA) and for TDTRAEs of grade 3-5, nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week was safer (0.85 in SUCRA). Nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week and nivolumab 240 mg/week were safer (0.79 and 0.76 in SUCRA) for SAEs and nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week was safer for SAEs of grade 3-5 (0.78 in SUCRA). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab 3 mg/kg biweekly, nivolumab 240 mg weekly and nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg triweekly could be preferred due to the relatively low risk of TRAEs, TDAEs and SAEs.

Assessing trial representativeness using serious adverse events: an observational analysis using aggregate and individual-level data from clinical trials and routine healthcare data.

BACKGROUND: The applicability of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological agents to older people with frailty/multimorbidity is often uncertain, due to concerns that trials are not representative. However, assessing trial representativeness is challenging and complex. We explore an approach assessing trial representativeness by comparing rates of trial serious adverse events (SAE) to rates of hospitalisation/death in routine care. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of individual (125 trials, n=122,069) and aggregate-level drug trial data (483 trials, n=636,267) for 21 index conditions compared to population-based routine healthcare data (routine care). Trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov . Routine care comparison from linked primary care and hospital data from Wales, UK (n=2.3M). Our outcome of interest was SAEs (routinely reported in trials). In routine care, SAEs were based on hospitalisations and deaths (which are SAEs by definition). We compared trial SAEs in trials to expected SAEs based on age/sex standardised routine care populations with the same index condition. Using IPD, we assessed the relationship between multimorbidity count and SAEs in both trials and routine care and assessed the impact on the observed/expected SAE ratio additionally accounting for multimorbidity. RESULTS: For 12/21 index conditions, the pooled observed/expected SAE ratio was <1, indicating fewer SAEs in trial participants than in routine care. A further 6/21 had point estimates <1 but the 95% CI included the null. The median pooled estimate of observed/expected SAE ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55-0.64; COPD) and the interquartile range was 0.44 (0.34-0.55; Parkinson's disease) to 0.87 (0.58-1.29; inflammatory bowel disease). Higher multimorbidity count was associated with SAEs across all index conditions in both routine care and trials. For most trials, the observed/expected SAE ratio moved closer to 1 after additionally accounting for multimorbidity count, but it nonetheless remained below 1 for most. CONCLUSIONS: Trial participants experience fewer SAEs than expected based on age/sex/condition hospitalisation and death rates in routine care, confirming the predicted lack of representativeness. This difference is only partially explained by differences in multimorbidity. Assessing observed/expected SAE may help assess the applicability of trial findings to older populations in whom multimorbidity and frailty are common.

Higher-Dose Gabapentinoids and the Risk of Adverse Events in Older Adults With CKD: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Gabapentinoids are opioid substitutes whose elimination by the kidneys is reduced as kidney function declines. To inform their safe prescribing in older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), we examined the 30-day risk of serious adverse events according to the prescribed starting dose. STUDY DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 74,084 older adults (64% women; median age, 79 [interquartile range, 73-85] years) with CKD (defined for this study as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and excluding those receiving dialysis) and a newly prescribed gabapentinoid between 2008 and 2020 in Ontario, Canada. EXPOSURE: Higher-dose gabapentinoids (gabapentin >300 mg/d or pregabalin >75 mg/d) versus lower-dose gabapentinoids (gabapentin ≤300 mg/d or pregabalin ≤75 mg/d). OUTCOMES: The primary composite outcome was the 30-day risk of a hospital visit with encephalopathy, a fall, or a fracture or a hospitalization with respiratory depression. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Comparison groups were balanced on indicators of baseline health using inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score analysis that generated a pseudosample for the reference group with a distribution of measured covariates similar to the exposed group. Weighted risk ratios were estimated using modified Poisson regression, and weighted risk differences were estimated using binomial regression. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted by estimated glomerular filtration rate category and type of gabapentinoid. RESULTS: Among 74,084 patients identified with CKD and a new prescription for gabapentin or pregabalin, 41% started at >300 or >75 mg/d, respectively. From this set of patients, a weighted study population with a size of 61,367 was generated. Patients who started at a higher dose had a higher 30-day risk of the primary outcome than patients who started at lower dose. Within the weighted population, the numbers of events for higher versus lower dose were 585 of 30,660 (1.9%) versus 462 of 30,707 (1.5%), respectively. The weighted risk ratio was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.13-1.42), and the weighted risk difference was 0.40% (95% CI, 0.21%-0.60%). In subgroup analyses, neither multiplicative nor additive interactions were statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: Residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, starting a gabapentinoid at a higher versus a lower dose was associated with a slightly higher risk of a hospital visit with encephalopathy, a fall, or a fracture or hospitalization with respiratory depression. If verified, these risks should be balanced against the benefits of using a higher-dose gabapentinoid.

A Risk Prediction Model of Serious Adverse Events After Cardiac Catheterization for Chinese Adults Patients with Moderate and Severe Congenital Heart Disease.

Background: There are almost 2 million adult patients with congenital heart disease in China, and the number of moderate and severe patients is increasing. However, few studies have investigated the risk of serious adverse events (SAE) after catheterization among them. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for SAE related to cardiac catheterization and to provide the risk scoring model for predicting SAE. Methods: A total of 690 patients with moderate and severe adult patients with congenital heart disease (ACHD) who underwent cardiac catheterization in Wuhan Asian Heart Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology from January 2018 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected and subsequently divided into a modeling group and a verification group. A univariate analysis was performed on the identified SAE risk factors, and then significant factors were included in the multivariate logistic regression model to screen for independent predictors of SAE. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test were used to evaluate the discrimination and calibration of the model, respectively. Results: A SAE occurred in 69 (10.0%) of the 690 catheterization procedures meeting inclusion criteria. The established SAE risk calculation formula was logit(p) = -6.134 + 0.992 × pulmonary artery hypertension (yes) + 1.459 × disease severity (severe) + 2.324 × procedure type (diagnostic and interventional) + 1.436 × cTnI ( ≥ 0.028 µ g/L) + 1.537 × NT-proBNP ( ≥ 126.65 pg/mL). The total score of the final risk score model based on the effect size of each predictor was 0 to 7, involving pulmonary artery hypertension (1 point), disease severity (1 point), procedure type (2 points), cTnI (1 point) and NT-proBNP (2 points), and the score greater than 3 means high risk. The C-statistic of the area under the ROC curve was 0.840 and 0.911 for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. According to the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, the p values in the modeling group and the verification group were 0.064 and 0.868, respectively. Conclusions: The risk prediction model developed in this study has high discrimination and calibration, which can provide reference for clinical prediction and evaluation of SAE risk after cardiac catheterization in patients with moderate and severe ACHD.

Risk of serious adverse events associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in orthopaedic surgery. A protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common condition following orthopaedic surgeries and causes prolonged hospitalisation, delayed rehabilitation and hamper the quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective analgesics and anti-inflammatory mediators in the treatment of postoperative pain. The association of NSAIDs with serious adverse events may however keep some clinicians and clinical decision makers from using NSAIDs perioperatively. The evidence regarding the risks of serious adverse events following perioperative use of NSAIDs in orthopaedic surgery is sparse and needs to be assessed in a systematic review. This is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to identify the risks of serious adverse events from perioperative use of NSAIDs in orthopaedic patients. METHODS: Our methodology is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We wish to assess if NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention, will influence the risks of serious adverse events in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. We will include all randomised trials assessing the use of NSAIDs perioperatively. To identify trials we will search the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cochrane Central Register, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science and BIOSIS. Two authors will screen the literature and extract data. We will use the 'Risk of Bias 2 tool' to assess trials. Extracted data will be analysed using RStudio and Trial Sequential Analysis. We will create a 'Summary of Findings' table in which we will present our primary and secondary outcomes. We will assess the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DISCUSSION: This systematic review can potentially aid clinicians and clinical decision makers in the use of NSAIDs for treatment of postoperative pain following orthopaedic surgeries.

Risks of serious adverse events associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in gastrointestinal surgery. A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative pain is frequent following gastrointestinal surgery and may result in prolonged hospitalisation, delayed recovery, and lower quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective analgesics and recommended by Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines as part of opioid-sparing multimodal treatment. However, perioperative NSAID treatment may be associated with increased risk of harm. We will investigate the risks of serious adverse events associated with perioperative NSAID treatment in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: This protocol uses the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We wish to assess the effects of NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care, or no intervention on the incidence of serious adverse in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. We will include all randomised trials. To identify trials, we will search the medical literature analysis and retrieval system online, excerpta medica database, cochrane central register of controlled trials, web of science core collection, and BIOSIS. Two authors will screen the literature and extract data. We will use the 'Risk of Bias 2 tool' to assess the risks of systematic errors. We will perform meta-analyses using R. We will use Trial Sequential Analysis to account for the risks of random errors. We will create a "Summary of Findings"-table in which we will present our primary and secondary outcome results. We will assess the certainty of the evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation. DISCUSSION: This systematic review can potentially elucidate the risks of perioperative NSAID treatment in gastrointestinal surgery and inform the already established non-opioid multimodal pain treatment regimen recommended by enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines.