Suspected adverse reactions to medications and food supplements containing Serenoa repens: A worldwide analysis of pharmacovigilance and phytovigilance spontaneous reports.

The safety of Serenoa repens (SR)-containing products was evaluated conducting a retrospective worldwide analysis of pharmaco- and phytovigilance report forms of suspected adverse reactions (SARs) collected up to 31 January 2022. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of serious SAR. A total of 1810 report forms were analysed; 92% of subjects were males, with a median age of 69 years; 44% of cases were defined as serious. Subjects exposed to dietary supplements had a higher risk of developing serious SARs (OR: 1.60 [95% CI: 1.20-2.15]), as subjects exposed to 2-5 (OR: 1. 83 [95% CI: 1.30-2.58]) or more than 5 (OR: 3.45 [95% CI: 2.36-5.06]) suspect/interacting products. The probability of experiencing serious SAR was higher for subjects exposed to concomitant products (OR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.15-2.08]), to more than four active compounds (OR: 4.38 [95% CI: 3.21-5.99]) and to SR for more than 14 days (OR: 1.89 [95% CI: 1.10-3, 22]), and lower for subjects exposed to higher doses of SR (OR: of 0.34 [95% CI: 0.20-0.58]). This evidence improves awareness on safety of SR containing products, suggesting the need of a further update of periodic reviews by national and international regulatory agencies.

Anti-hypertensive drugs deprescribing: an updated systematic review of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is defined as the prescription of at least 5 different medicines for therapeutic or prophylactic effect and is a serious issue among elderly patients, who are frequently affected by multi-morbidity. Deprescribing is one of the proposed approaches to reduce the number of administered drugs, by eliminating those that are inappropriately prescribed. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an updated and systematic assessment of the benefit-risk profile of deprescribing of anti-hypertensive drugs, which are among the most commonly used drugs. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched for studies assessing the efficacy and safety of anti-hypertensive drugs deprescribing in the period between January, 12,016 and December, 312,019. The quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was assessed using the GRADE approach for the evaluation of the main outcomes. The risk of bias assessment was carried out using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Overall, two RCTs were identified. Despite summarized evidence was in favor of anti-hypertensive deprescribing, the overall risk of bias was rated as high for each RCT included. According to the GRADE approach, the overall quality of the RCTs included was moderate regarding the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure < 150 mmHg after 12 weeks of follow-up, quality of life, frailty and cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: This updated systematic review of the efficacy and safety of anti-hypertensive treatment deprescribing found two recently published RCTs, in addition to the previous guideline of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Evidence points towards non-inferiority of anti-hypertensive deprescribing as compared to treatment continuation, despite the quality of published studies is not high. High quality experimental studies are urgently needed to further assess the effect of deprescribing for this drug class in specific categories of patients.

Kidney Disease in Diabetic Patients: From Pathophysiology to Pharmacological Aspects with a Focus on Therapeutic Inertia.

Diabetes mellitus represents a growing concern, both for public economy and global health. In fact, it can lead to insidious macrovascular and microvascular complications, impacting negatively on patients' quality of life. Diabetic patients often present diabetic kidney disease (DKD), a burdensome complication that can be silent for years. The average time of onset of kidney impairment in diabetic patients is about 7-10 years. The clinical impact of DKD is dangerous not only for the risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and therefore to renal replacement therapies, but also because of the associated increase in cardiovascular events. An early recognition of risk factors for DKD progression can be decisive in decreasing morbidity and mortality. DKD presents patient-related, clinician-related, and system-related issues. All these problems are translated into therapeutic inertia, which is defined as the failure to initiate or intensify therapy on time according to evidence-based clinical guidelines. Therapeutic inertia can be resolved by a multidisciplinary pool of healthcare experts. The timing of intensification of treatment, the transition to the best therapy, and dietetic strategies must be provided by a multidisciplinary team, driving the patients to the glycemic target and delaying or overcoming DKD-related complications. A timely nephrological evaluation can also guarantee adequate information to choose the right renal replacement therapy at the right time in case of renal impairment progression.

Safety of Biological Therapies for Severe Asthma: An Analysis of Suspected Adverse Reactions Reported in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database.

BACKGROUND: The management of uncontrolled severe asthma has greatly improved since the advent of novel biologic therapies. Up to August 2022, five biologics have been approved for the type 2 asthma phenotype: anti-IgE (omalizumab), anti-IL5 (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab), and anti-IL4 (dupilumab) monoclonal antibodies. These drugs are usually well tolerated, although long-term safety information is limited, and some adverse events have not yet been fully characterized. Spontaneous reporting systems represent the cornerstone for the detection of potential signals and evaluation of the real-world safety of all marketed drugs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of safety data of biologics for severe asthma using VigiBase, the World Health Organization global pharmacovigilance database. METHODS: We selected all de-duplicated individual case safety reports (ICSRs) attributed to five approved biologics for severe asthma in VigiBase, up to 31st August 2022 (omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab). Descriptive frequency analyses of ICSRs were carried out both as a whole class and as individual products. Reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the measure of disproportionality for suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the study drugs compared with either all other suspected drugs (Reference Group 1, RG1) or inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß-agonists (ICSs/LABAs) (Reference Group 2, RG2) or with oral corticosteroids (OCSs) (Reference Group 3, RG3). RESULTS: Overall, 31,724,381 ICSRs were identified in VigiBase and 167,282 (0.5%) were related to study drugs; the remaining reports were considered as RG1. Stratifying all biologic-related ICSRs by therapeutic indication, around 29.4% (n = 48,440) concerned asthma use; omalizumab was mainly indicated as the suspected drug (n = 20,501), followed by dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab and reslizumab. Most asthma ICSRs concerned adults (57%) and women (64.1%). Asthma biologics showed a higher frequency of serious suspected ADR reporting than RG1 (41.3% vs 32.3%). The most reported suspected ADRs included asthma, dyspnea, product use issue, drug ineffective, cough, headache, fatigue and wheezing. Asthma biologics were disproportionally associated with several unknown or less documented adverse events, such as malignancies, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis with omalizumab; alopecia and lichen planus with dupilumab; alopecia and herpes infections with mepolizumab; alopecia, herpes zoster and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis related to benralizumab; and alopecia with reslizumab. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequently reported suspected ADRs of asthma biologics in VigiBase confirmed the presence of well-known adverse effects such as general disorders, injection-site reactions, nasopharyngitis, headache and hypersensitivity, while some others (e.g. asthma reactivation or therapeutic failure) could be ascribed to the indication of use. Moreover, the analysis of signals of disproportionate reporting suggests the presence of malignancies, effects on the cardiovascular system, alopecia and autoimmune conditions, requiring further assessment and investigation.

What is the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Immunocompromised Patients? Results from the European "Covid Vaccine Monitor" Active Surveillance Study.

BACKGROUND: The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients has not been comprehensively evaluated. AIM: To measure the frequency of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the first/second/booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised subject versus matched cohort. As a secondary objective, the time course, evaluated as time to onset (TTO) and time to recovery (TTR), of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs was explored. METHODS: A prospective cohort study, based on electronic questionnaires filled by vaccinees from 11 European countries in the period February 2021 to February 2023 was conducted. All immunocompromised vaccinees who provided informed consent and registered to the project's web-app within 48 h after first/booster vaccine dose administration of any EMA-authorised COVID-19 vaccine were recruited. Participants filled baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires (FU-Qs) over 6 months from vaccination, collecting information on suspected COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs. As a control group, non-immunocompromised vaccinees from the same source population were 1:4 matched by sex, age, vaccine dose, and brand. A descriptive analysis of demographic/clinical characteristics of vaccinees was conducted. Heatmaps of the frequency of solicited ADRs, stratified by gender and vaccine brand, were generated. Median TTO/TTR of reported ADRs were visualised using violin/box-plots. RESULTS: A total of 773 immunocompromised vaccines were included in the analyses. Most participants were females (F/M ratio: 2.1 and 1.6) with a median age of 56 (43-74) and 51 (41-60) years, at the first vaccination cycle and booster dose, respectively. Injection-site pain and fatigue were the most frequently reported ADRs in immunocompromised vaccinees with higher frequency than matched control, especially after the first dose (41.2% vs 37.8% and 38.2% vs 32.9%, respectively). For both cohorts, all solicited ADRs were more frequently reported in females than males, and in those who had received a first dose of the Vaxzevria vaccine. Dizziness was the most frequently reported unsolicited ADR after the first dose in both groups (immunocompromised subjects: 2.5% and matched controls: 2.1%). At the booster dose, lymphadenopathy (3.9%) and lymphadenitis (1.8%) were the most reported unsolicited ADRs for immunocompromised subjects and matched controls, respectively. A very low number of subjects reported adverse event of special interest (AESI) (2 immunocompromised, 3 matched controls) and serious ADRs (5 immunocompromised, 5 matched controls). A statistically significant difference among study cohorts was observed for median TTO after the booster dose, and for median TTR after the first vaccination cycle and booster dose (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The overall safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised people was favourable, with minor differences as compared to non-immunocompromised vaccinees. Participants mostly experienced mild ADRs, mainly reported after the first dose of Vaxzevria and Jcovden vaccines. Serious ADRs and AESI were rare.

Frequency and timing of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines; A multi-country cohort event monitoring study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs. METHODS: A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU). RESULTS: A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82-74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19--0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines in Persons with Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A European Multi-Country Study.

In all pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines, the history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was mentioned as one of the main exclusion criteria. In the absence of clinical trials, observational studies are the primary source for evidence generation. This study aims to describe the patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following the first COVID-19 vaccination cycle, as well as the administration of booster doses of different vaccine brands, in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to prior infection-free matched cohorts of vaccinees. A web-based prospective study was conducted collecting vaccinee-reported outcomes through electronic questionnaires from eleven European countries in the period February 2021-February 2023. A baseline questionnaire and up to six follow-up questionnaires collected data on the vaccinee's characteristics, as well as solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions. Overall, 3886 and 902 vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and having received the first dose or a booster dose, respectively, were included in the analysis. After the first dose or booster dose, vaccinees with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a higher frequency than those matched without prior infection (3470 [89.6%] vs. 2916 [75.3%], and 614 [68.2%] vs. 546 [60.6%], respectively). On the contrary side, after the second dose, vaccinees with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported at least one ADR at a lower frequency, compared to matched controls (1443 [85.0%] vs. 1543 [90.9%]). The median time to onset and the median time to recovery were similar across all doses and cohorts. The frequency of adverse reactions was higher in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received Vaxzevria as the first dose and Spikevax as the second and booster doses. The frequency of serious ADRs was low for all doses and cohorts. Data from this large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccinees could be used to inform people as to the likelihood of adverse effects based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, age, sex, and the type of vaccine administered. In line with pivotal trials, the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also confirmed in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Anaphylaxis due to antiallergic and antiasthmatic biologics.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a better understanding of the risk of anaphylaxis due to antiallergic and antiasthmatic biologics through an analysis of data reported in literature and in clinical trials, and by conducting a retrospective descriptive analysis of individual case safety reports on VigiBase, the WHO International Pharmacovigilance database. RECENT FINDINGS: Analysis of the data, as described, demonstrated safety of the antiallergic and antiasthmatic biologics with a low incidence of anaphylaxis. SUMMARY: Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of many diseases, such as atopic dermatitis, nasal polyps, spontaneous chronic urticarial and severe asthma with a precise immunological action, in the sphere of precision medicine.Albeit these drugs are generally well tolerated, generating real-world evidence is crucial to re-evaluate clinically relevant adverse events, such as anaphylaxis, allowing to confirm their safety profile in particular in special populations such as paediatric patients.

Exploring the Use of Monoclonal Antibodies and Antiviral Therapies for Early Treatment of COVID-19 Outpatients in a Real-World Setting: A Nationwide Study from England and Italy.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatients with newly approved therapies are sparse. AIM: To explore the pattern of use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)/antiviral therapies approved for early COVID-19 treatment in non-hospitalized patients from England and Italy from December 2021 to October 2022. METHODS: Public national dashboards on weekly mAb/antiviral use and/or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnoses from the Italian Medicines Agency, the Italian National Institute of Health, National Health Service in England and the UK Government were explored. Prevalence of antiviral use in outpatients during the entire study period and every two weeks was calculated, as a whole and by class and compounds. An interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was carried out to assess the impact of predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants over time on the prevalence of use of mAbs/antivirals in England and Italy. RESULTS: Overall, 77,469 and 195,604 doses of mAbs/antivirals were respectively administered to a total of 10,630,903 (7.3 per 1000) and 18,168,365 (10.8 per 1000) patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in England and Italy. Prevalence of use every two weeks increased from 0.07% to 3.1% in England and 0.9% to 2.3% in Italy during the study period. Regarding individual compounds, sotrovimab (prevalence of use, 1.6%) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (1.6%) in England, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (1.7%) and molnupiravir (0.5%) in Italy, reported the highest prevalence during a 2-week period. In the ITS analysis, the transition from Delta to Omicron variant predominance was associated with a significant increase in the use of sotrovimab, molnupiravir, remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in both England and Italy, with a reduction of other marketed mAbs. The extent of the increase was higher in England than in Italy for all these drugs except for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: In this dual nationwide study, the prevalence of use of mAbs/antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 for early outpatients' treatment increased slowly up to 2.0-3.0% of all patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in both England and Italy from December 2021 to October 2022. The trend of individual drug use varied in relation to predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants with some differences across countries. In line with scientific societies' guidelines, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was the most frequently prescribed antiviral in both countries in the most recent period.

Is PEGylation of Drugs Associated with Hypersensitivity Reactions? An Analysis of the Italian National Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting System.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Evidence highlights the allergenic potential of PEGylated drugs because of the production of anti-polyethylene glycol immunoglobulins. We investigated the risk of hypersensitivity reactions of PEGylated drugs using the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting system database. METHODS: We selected adverse drug reaction reports attributed to medicinal products containing PEGylated active substances and/or PEGylated liposomes from the Italian Spontaneous Reporting System in the period between its inception and March 2021. As comparators, we extracted adverse drug reaction reports of medicinal products containing the same non-PEGylated active substances and/or non-PEGylated liposomes (or compounds belonging to the same mechanistic class). A descriptive analysis of reports of hypersensitivity reactions was performed. Reporting rates and time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions were also calculated in the period between January 2009 and March 2021. As a measure of disproportionality, we calculated the reporting odds ratio. RESULTS: Overall, 3865 adverse drug reaction reports were related to PEGylated medicinal products and 11,961 to their non-PEGylated comparators. Around two-thirds of patients were female and reports mostly concerned patients aged between 46 and 64 years. The frequency of hypersensitivity reactions reporting was higher among PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (11.7% vs 9.4%, p < 0.0001). The hypersensitivity reaction reporting rates were higher for PEGylated medicinal products versus non-PEGylated medicinal products, with reporting rate ratios that ranged from 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.8-2.5) for pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim to 20.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-143.5) for peginterferon alpha-2a versus interferon alpha-2a. The median time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions was 10 days (interquartile range: 0-61) for PEGylated medicinal products, and 36 days (interquartile range: 3-216) for non-PEGylated comparators. Statistically significant reporting odds ratios were observed when comparing the reporting of hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (reporting odds ratio: 1.3; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.4). However, when using all other drugs as comparators, the disproportionality analysis showed no association with hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated nor non-PEGylated medicinal products, thus suggesting that many other triggers of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions play a major role. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this analysis of the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction database suggest a potential involvement for PEGylation in triggering drug-related hypersensitivity reactions, especially clinically relevant reactions. However, when comparing both PEGylated and non-PEGylated drugs under study to all other drugs no disproportionate reporting of hypersensitivity reactions was observed, probably due to a masking effect owing to the presence in the same database of other medicinal products increasing the threshold required to highlight a safety signal when the entire database is used as a reference.

Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines Among the Paediatric Population: Analysis of the European Surveillance Systems and Pivotal Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The European Medicine Agency extended the use of Comirnaty, Spikevax, and Nuvaxovid in paediatrics; thus, these vaccines require additional real-world safety evidence. Herein, we aimed to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through Covid-19 Vaccine Monitor (CVM) and EudraVigilance surveillance systems and the published pivotal clinical trials. METHODS: In a prospective cohort of vaccinees aged between 5 and 17 years, we measured the frequency of commonly reported (local/systemic solicited) and serious adverse drug events (ADRs) following the first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines in Europe using data from the CVM cohort until April 2022. The results of previous pivotal clinical trials and data in the EudraVigilance were also analysed. RESULTS: The CVM study enrolled 658 first-dose vaccinees (children aged 5-11 years; n = 250 and adolescents aged 12-17 years; n = 408). Local/systemic solicited ADRs were common, whereas serious ADRs were uncommon. Among Comirnaty first and second dose recipients, 28.8% and 17.1% of children and 54.2% and 52.2% of adolescents experienced at least one ADR, respectively; injection-site pain (29.2% and 20.7%), fatigue (16.1% and 12.8%), and headache (22.1% and 19.3%) were the most frequent local and systemic ADRs. Results were consistent but slightly lower than in pivotal clinical trials. Reporting rates in Eudravigilance were lower by a factor of 1000. CONCLUSIONS: The CVM study showed high frequencies of local solicited reactions after vaccination but lower rates than in pivotal clinical trials. Injection-site pain, fatigue, and headache were the most commonly reported ADRs for clinical trials, but higher than spontaneously reported data.

Cohort Event Monitoring of Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines in Seven European Countries: Pooled Results on First Dose.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees. METHODS: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40-49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70-79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1-0.2% across all vaccine brands. CONCLUSION: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials.

Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines: Risk Factors, Frequency, Mechanisms and Management.

Conventional vaccines have been widely studied, along with their risk of causing allergic reactions. These generally consist of mild local reactions and only rarely severe anaphylaxis. Although all the current COVID-19 vaccines marketed in Europe have been shown to be safe overall in the general population, early post-marketing evidence has shown that mRNA-based vaccines using novel platforms (i.e., lipid nanoparticles) were associated with an increased risk of severe allergic reactions as compared to conventional vaccines. In this paper we performed an updated literature review on frequency, risk factors, and underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergies by searching MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases. We also conducted a qualitative search on VigiBase and EudraVigilance databases to identify reports of "Hypersensitivity" and "Anaphylactic reaction" potentially related to COVID-19 vaccines (Comirnaty, Spikevax, Vaxzevria and COVID-19 Janssen Vaccine), and in EudraVigilance to estimate the reporting rates of "Anaphylactic reaction" and "Anaphylactic shock" after COVID-19 vaccination in the European population. We also summarized the scientific societies' and regulatory agencies' recommendations for prevention and management of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergic reactions, especially in those with a history of allergy.

Global epidemiology of acromegaly: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To date, no systematic reviews and meta-analysis on the global epidemiology of acromegaly are available in the literature. The aims of this study are to provide a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the global epidemiology of acromegaly and to evaluate the quality of study reporting for the identified studies. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies assessing the epidemiology of acromegaly from inception until 31 January 2020. We included original observational studies written in English, reporting acromegaly prevalence and/or incidence for a well-defined geographic area. Two reviewers independently extracted data and performed quality assessments. Prevalence and incidence pooled estimates were derived by performing a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included in the systematic review, and 22 of them were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of acromegaly was 5.9 (95% CI: 4.4-7.9) per 100 000 persons, while the incidence rate (IR) was 0.38 (95% CI: 0.32-0.44) cases per 100 000 person-years. For both prevalence and IR, considerable between-study heterogeneity was found (I2 = 99.3 and 86.0%, respectively). The quality of study reporting was rated as the medium for 20 studies and low for 12 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although the largest amount of heterogeneity was due to the high precision of the studies' estimates, data source and geographic area could represent relevant study-level factors which could explain about 50% of the total between-study variability. Large-scale high-quality studies on the epidemiology of acromegaly are warranted to help the public health system in making decisions.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy, Paediatrics, Immunocompromised Patients, and Persons with History of Allergy or Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Overview of Current Recommendations and Pre- and Post-Marketing Evidence for Vaccine Efficacy and Safety.

To date, four vaccines have been authorised for emergency use and under conditional approval by the European Medicines Agency to prevent COVID-19: Comirnaty, COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen, Spikevax (previously COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna) and Vaxzevria (previously COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca). Although the benefit-risk profile of these vaccines was proven to be largely favourable in the general population, evidence in special cohorts initially excluded from the pivotal trials, such as pregnant and breastfeeding women, children/adolescents, immunocompromised people and persons with a history of allergy or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, is still limited. In this narrative review, we critically overview pre- and post-marketing evidence on the potential benefits and risks of marketed COVID-19 vaccines in the above-mentioned special cohorts. In addition, we summarise the recommendations of the scientific societies and regulatory agencies about COVID-19 primary prevention in the same vaccinee categories.

Association of Influenza Vaccination and Prognosis in Patients Testing Positive to SARS-CoV-2 Swab Test: A Large-Scale Italian Multi-Database Cohort Study.

To investigate the association of the 2019-2020 influenza vaccine with prognosis of patients positive for SARS-CoV-2A, a large multi-database cohort study was conducted in four Italian regions (i.e., Lazio, Lombardy, Veneto, and Tuscany) and the Reggio Emilia province (Emilia-Romagna). More than 21 million adults were residing in the study area (42% of the population). We included 115,945 COVID-19 cases diagnosed during the first wave of the pandemic (February-May, 2020); 34.6% of these had been vaccinated against influenza. Three outcomes were considered: hospitalization, death, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission/death. The adjusted relative risk (RR) of being hospitalized in the vaccinated group when compared with the non-vaccinated group was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.86-0.88). This reduction in risk was not confirmed for death (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06), or for the combined outcome of ICU admission or death. In conclusion, our study, conducted on the vast majority of the population during the first wave of the pandemic in Italy, showed a 13% statistically significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization in some geographical areas and in the younger population. No impact of seasonal influenza vaccination on COVID-19 prognosis in terms of death and death or ICU admission was estimated.

Potential effects of vaccinations on the prevention of COVID-19: rationale, clinical evidence, risks, and public health considerations.

Introduction Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), has quickly spread around the world. Areas covered This review will discuss the available immunologic and clinical evidence to support the benefit of the influenza, pneumococcal, and tuberculosis vaccines in the context of COVID-19 as well as to provide an overview on the COVID-19-specific vaccines that are in the development pipeline. In addition, implications for vaccination strategies from a public health perspective will be discussed. Expert opinion Some vaccines are being considered for their potentially beneficial role in preventing or improving the prognosis of COVID-19: influenza, pneumococcal and tuberculosis vaccines. These vaccines may have either direct effect on COVID-19 via different types of immune responses or indirect effects by reducing the burden of viral and bacterial respiratory diseases on individual patients and national healthcare system and by facilitating differential diagnoses with other viral/bacterial respiratory disease. On the other hand, a large number of candidate vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are currently in the pipeline and undergoing phase I, II, and III clinical studies. As SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected to be marketed through accelerated regulatory pathways, vaccinovigilance as well as planning of a successful vaccination campaign will play a major role in protecting public health.