Performance of Aptima-HPV in the cervical cancer screening program of Portugal: a cost-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a major concern to women's health, being the fourth most common cancer worldwide. A great percentage of these cancer is consequence of an HPV infection, namely from specific genotypes such as 16/18. Portuguese screening program subjects women to a reflex cytology triage every 5 years. Aptima® HPV is a screening test which presents better specificity than other tests which are used in Portugal (Hybrid Capture® 2 and Cobas® 4800) and still have a comparable sensitivity. The present study aims to estimate the number of diagnostic tests and costs that are avoided using Aptima® HPV compared to the use of two other tests, Hybrid Capture® 2 and Cobas® 4800, within the cervical cancer screening programme in Portugal. METHODS: A model, consisting of a decision-tree, was developed to represent the full Portuguese screening program for cervical cancer. This model is used to compare the costs resulting from using Aptima® HPV test versus the other tests used in Portugal, during 2 years. Other outcomes such as the number of additional tests and exams were also computed. This comparison considers the performance of each test (sensitivity and specificity) and assumes an equal price for every test compared. RESULTS: Cost savings resulting from the use of Aptima® HPV are estimated at approximately €382 million versus Hybrid Capture® 2 and €2.8 million versus Cobas® 4800. Moreover, Aptima® HPV prevents 265,443 and 269,856 additional tests and exams when compared with Hybrid Capture® 2 and Cobas® 4800. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Aptima® HPV resulted in lower costs as well as less additional test and exams. These values result from the greater specificity of Aptima® HPV, which signals less false positive cases and consequently avoids carrying out additional tests.

Ibandronate in the Prevention of Vertebral and Nonvertebral Osteoporotic Fractures: A Systematic Review of Experimental and Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate ibandronate clinical effectiveness in the prevention of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures (VFs) and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's guidance and reporting in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement 2020. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE since their inception until February 7, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, experimental, and observational studies evaluating adult patients treated with ibandronate and assessed to osteoporotic fractures prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed according to study design. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Eight references from 4 RCTs, 7 meta-analyses, and 6 observational studies were included. In RCTs, oral ibandronate was superior to placebo in the prevention of VF. However, the doses were lower than those approved. The meta-analyses confirmed these results and showed that adequate doses of oral ibandronate reduce the risk of NVF compared with insufficient doses. In observational studies, oral ibandronate (in approved doses) reduced the risk of VF compared with no treatment or risedronate or alendronate and the risk of NVF versus risedronate or alendronate; the risk of hip fractures was similar between ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that ibandronate reduces the risk of VF in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The available evidence further suggests that ibandronate may reduce the risk of NVF versus insufficient doses of ibandronate, as well as risedronate or alendronate.

The safety of systemic Janus kinase inhibitors in atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been developed to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, but there is little evidence comparing the safety profile of these drugs. The aim of this study is to compare the relative safety of the different systemic JAK inhibitors in atopic dermatitis. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched to identify phase 2/3, clinical trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors in atopic dermatitis. Outcomes were the risk of any adverse event (AE), serious AEs, AEs leading to treatment discontinuation, any infection, serious infections, herpes zoster infection, and any cardiac or vascular event. RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs were included. Compared with placebo, baricitinib (odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.03-1.55), abrocitinib (OR 1.54, 95% CrI 1.25-1.90), and upadacitinib (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.19-1.81) increase the risk of any adverse event. Abrocitinib (OR 1.62, 95% CrI 1.7-2.72), upadacitinib (OR 1.67, 95% CrI 1.19-2.43), and dupilumab (OR 1.69, 95% CrI 1.02-2.79) increase the risk of infections when compared with placebo. Dupilumab has a reduced risk of herpes zoster infection when compared with upadacitinib (OR 0.23; 95% CrI 0.08-0.81) No further statistically significant risk differences between treatments were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest systemic JAK inhibitors for atopic dermatitis have a similar safety profile. However, as current data present limitations, postmarketing safety evidence will be crucial to draw definitive conclusions regarding the safety of JAK inhibitors.

Development of medicines consumption in Portugal before and during the financial crisis.

BACKGROUND: In May 2011, the Portuguese Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, including detailed measures to control health costs, allowing Portugal to receive a financial rescue package. This study aims to investigate medicines utilization in the outpatient sector during Troika's financial rescue. METHODS: Using Defined Daily Dose per million inhabitants per year as a measurement unit, we compared medicines utilization with other relevant indicators over 5-year intervals for a total period of 20 years, based on a built-in inventory of national outpatient drug use using the Intercontinental Medical Statistics Health and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical index of the World Health Organization databases. The calculation was made on the basis of both compound and year-on-year growth rates. RESULTS: With the exception of the interval 2009-11, an absolute rise in consumption was observed over the 20-year period. The downturn occurred prior to financial rescue, when expenditure management mechanisms were already in place, and coincided with an increase in out-of-pocket spending. With the decline of cost for patients, the access trend returned to being positive, but at a slower pace. CONCLUSION: The rise in out-of-pocket and austerity measures may have led to decreased access to medicines. The findings of this study suggest that this impact was influenced by public cost-saving policies implemented even before the financial rescue. The results show that price reduction attenuated the repercussion of the measures.

Real-world intensive safety monitoring of biosimilars rituximab and trastuzumab in a Portuguese oncology hospital.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety profiles of two biosimilar medicines (rituximab and trastuzumab) in the treatment of cancer patients within a Portuguese oncology hospital. METHODS: This hospital-based prospective observational study followed a cohort event monitoring approach focused on signalling suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patients undergoing treatment with rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 (Truxima®) or trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 (Herzuma®) were recruited over an 11-month and a 6-month period, respectively. Clinicians identified eligible patients and used paper-based forms to report all ADRs associated with biosimilar medicines. ADR case reports were assessed for seriousness, expectedness and causality in the Pharmacovigilance Unit of Coimbra. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients received biosimilar medicines (rituximab, n = 35; trastuzumab, n = 59). Of those, 4 patients (11.4%) experienced 16 ADRs with rituximab and 1 patient (1.7%) experienced 5 ADRs with trastuzumab. All case reports contained serious and expected ADRs that were at least probably related with biosimilar medicines under study. Based on the MedDRA PT coding, the most reported ADR for rituximab CT-P10 was chest discomfort (n = 4; 19.1%), followed by odynophagia (n = 2; 9.5%). Trastuzumab CT-P6 was associated with back pain, headache, pain in extremity, tachypnoea and tremor (each, n = 1; 4.8%). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that using biosimilar rituximab and biosimilar trastuzumab to treat cancer patients in the real-world clinical setting is associated with acceptable safety profiles. No new safety problems were identified.

Intensive safety monitoring program of antineoplastic medicines: A pilot study in a Portuguese oncology hospital.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and the usefulness of an intensive safety monitoring program to identify adverse drug reactions for medicines under additional monitoring that are used to treat cancer patients within a Portuguese oncology hospital. METHODS: This pilot intensive safety monitoring program was a three-month prospective, observational study. Patients undergoing treatment with one of the following medicines were included: nivolumab, olaparib, palbociclib, pembrolizumab, pertuzumab, ramucirumab, ribociclib, trastuzumab emtansine, or trifluridine/tipiracil. Potential eligible patients were identified by pharmacists based on prescription data. Clinicians used proper paper-based reporting forms to record adverse drug reactions. Clinical secretariats sent those reports through an electronic platform to the pharmacovigilance department for analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were on treatment with selected medicines. Of those, 33 (44%) experienced adverse drug reactions: 23 (69.7%) cases were serious and 5 (15.2%) unexpected. Considering the number of patients exposed to each medicine and the number of patients experiencing adverse drug reactions, trifluridine/tipiracil (72.7%; 8/11) was associated with the highest rate of toxicity, followed by olaparib (66.7%; 2/3), trastuzumab emtansine (50.0%; 3/6), pertuzumab (47.8%; 11/23), pembrolizumab (45.5%; 5/11), palbociclib (25.0%; 1/4), and nivolumab (18.8%; 3/16). A total of 59 adverse drug reactions were identified (i.e. 1.8 adverse drug reactions/patient), mainly gastrointestinal disorders (n = 15; 25.4%), and blood and lymphatic system disorders (n = 14; 23.7%). CONCLUSION: This intensive safety monitoring program was feasible and allowed identifying serious and unexpected adverse drug reactions, adding value to pharmacovigilance and therefore contributing to improve patient safety. Further research is needed to confirm the findings of this pilot study.

Recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews in medical literature: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: This scoping review aims to identify, review and characterize the published recommendations to conduct and/or to report a systematic review in medical interventions area. METHODS: A search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, using systematic reviews search filters. The search comprises all recommendations to conduct and/or report a systematic review. Data on methods were extracted from each recommendation. A descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Eighty-three recommendations were identified. Approximately 60% of retrieved references were published in the last 6 years. Recommendations to both conduct and report a systematic review were issued in 47% studies. The guidance presented in each recommendation to conduct and/ or report a systematic review varied. Almost 96% of the recommendations offer guidance on systematic review methods section. The need and time for updating was only recommended in 29% of recommendations. Forty percent of recommendations endorsed their methods to any subject related to medical interventions. Half of the studies did not specify the design of studies to be included in a systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Several recommendations to conduct and/or report a systematic review were published and offered different guidance. Further research on the impact of such heterogeneity can improve systematic reviews quality.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity: A 5-year retrospective study in a hospital electronic health records database.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Hypersensitivity adverse drug reactions (HADRs) are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to identify cases of HADRs within a hospital electronic health records (EHR) database. METHODS: Data were extracted from EHR through the Portuguese catalogue of allergies and other adverse reactions (CPARA). This registry allows the collection and sharing of information on HADRs in a structured and harmonized way across the healthcare system. This module is used by healthcare professionals to record HADRs within the EHR of each patient. It applies to patients admitted to hospital because of HADRs and also to inpatients developing such reactions during hospitalization. Data recorded from 2013 to 2017 within the Centro Hospitalar de Entre o Douro e Vouga (CHEDV) hospital (397 beds; ≈20 300 inpatients/year) were considered. The MedDRA® classification was used to codify HADRs. The ATC classification system was used to codify drugs. The concept of individual case safety report (ICSR) was considered for performing analyses. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The database contained 464 valid cases (severe, n = 330; 71.1%), corresponding to 380 patients and 559 HADRs. Most patients were female (n = 254; 66.8%); the median age was 55 years. Approximately 0.1% local inhabitants and ≈0.4% inpatients have experienced HADRs over the study period. Most cases (n = 245; 52.8%) were associated with systemic antibacterials. Most HADRs were skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (n = 266; 47.6%) and immune system disorders (n = 231; 41.3%). The pattern of suspected drugs implicated in anaphylactic reactions was the same as those involved in other HADRs. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This registry contains HADRs that are relevant for the pharmacovigilance system, but none was spontaneously reported. The responsible authorities should address this problem. The results also reinforce the association between systemic antibacterials and HADRs.

Methodologic Assessment of the Systematic Reviews of Ophthalmic Adverse Drug Reactions Published in Ophthalmology Journals: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to characterize and review the methodology of the systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions. METHODS: This systematic review followed the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guide. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched, by all Ophthalmology journals. All systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions in the last decade were included. Data on methodology were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed through A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 scale. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one systematic reviews were identified. Almost 60% of the systematic reviews reported non-ophthalmic drugs. Nine (43%) systematic reviews did not follow any recommendation. A search filter was not applied in 48% systematic reviews. Observational data was the source of information most included. The methodological quality was assessed in 57% systematic reviews. A meta-analysis was performed in 57% systematic reviews. The protocol's elaboration, the explanation of the sources of information and the list of excluded articles were the domains less performed in the systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: The systematic reviews reporting ophthalmic adverse drug reactions diverged in some methodological aspects. Such an issue deserves further investigation, since discrepancies may lead to biased conclusions and, consequently, impact clinical and/or regulatory decisions.

Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: an appraisal.

BACKGROUND: The number needed to treat (NNT) is an absolute effect measure that has been used to assess beneficial and harmful effects of medical interventions. Several methods can be used to calculate NNTs, and they should be applied depending on the different study characteristics, such as the design and type of variable used to measure outcomes. Whether or not the most recommended methods have been applied to calculate NNTs in studies published in the medical literature is yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to assess whether the methods used to calculate NNTs in studies published in medical journals are in line with basic methodological recommendations. METHODS: The top 25 high-impact factor journals in the "General and/or Internal Medicine" category were screened to identify studies assessing pharmacological interventions and reporting NNTs. Studies were categorized according to their design and the type of variables. NNTs were assessed for completeness (baseline risk, time horizon, and confidence intervals [CIs]). The methods used for calculating NNTs in selected studies were compared to basic methodological recommendations published in the literature. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The search returned 138 citations, of which 51 were selected. Most were meta-analyses (n = 23, 45.1%), followed by clinical trials (n = 17, 33.3%), cohort (n = 9, 17.6%), and case-control studies (n = 2, 3.9%). Binary variables were more common (n = 41, 80.4%) than time-to-event (n = 10, 19.6%) outcomes. Twenty-six studies (51.0%) reported only NNT to benefit (NNTB), 14 (27.5%) reported both NNTB and NNT to harm (NNTH), and 11 (21.6%) reported only NNTH. Baseline risk (n = 37, 72.5%), time horizon (n = 38, 74.5%), and CI (n = 32, 62.7%) for NNTs were not always reported. Basic methodological recommendations to calculate NNTs were not followed in 15 studies (29.4%). The proportion of studies applying non-recommended methods was particularly high for meta-analyses (n = 13, 56.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable proportion of studies, particularly meta-analyses, applied methods that are not in line with basic methodological recommendations. Despite their usefulness in assisting clinical decisions, NNTs are uninterpretable if incompletely reported, and they may be misleading if calculating methods are inadequate to study designs and variables under evaluation. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings.

Risk of Ophthalmic Adverse Effects in Patients Treated with MEK Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the risk of ophthalmic adverse effects associated with MEK inhibitors. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) which have been designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MEK inhibitors. Overall risk of ophthalmic adverse effects, chorioretinopathy, retinal detachment, blurred vision, uveitis, and eye haemorrhage were the assessed outcomes. Peto odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, MEK inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of ophthalmic adverse effects (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.75-2.87; p < 0.0001; I2 = 86.5%). An increased risk was also estimated for chorioretinopathy (OR 5.44; 95% CI 2.89-10.23; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%), retinal detachment (OR 6.54; 95% CI 3.28-13.03; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%), and blurred vision (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.50-3.54; p < 0.0001; I2 = 60.1%), but not for uveitis (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.14-7.03; p = 0.991; I2 = 2.9%) or eye haemorrhage (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.04-12.39; p = 0.824; I2 = 29.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with MEK inhibitors seems to increase the risk of ophthalmic adverse effects. A need for monitoring the safety of this class of drugs exists. Regulators, clinicians, and other health care professionals must, together, be involved in this process.

The benefit of HER2-targeted therapies on overall survival of patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer--a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed at evaluating the overall survival (OS) gain associated with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-directed therapies in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: A bibliographic search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane databases. Only phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including HER2-positive (HER2+) mBC patients were included in this review. OS was defined as time from randomization until the occurrence of death from any cause. Studies have been grouped according to the line of treatment, i.e., first-line or second-line or beyond. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were eligible for inclusion, of which 12 assessed therapies targeting HER2+ mBC in the first-line setting. OS improved from 20.3 months in the first RCT (standard chemotherapy; Slamon et al. (N Engl J Med 344:783-92, 2001)) evaluating HER2-targeting therapies to 48 months in the study of Swain et al. (Lancet Oncol 14:461-71, 2013), with triple combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab and docetaxel. Seven RCTs evaluated the OS of HER2-targeting therapies in the second-line setting and beyond. The OS in second-line setting improved from 15.3 months (capecitabine; Cameron et al. (Breast Cancer Res Treat 112:533-43, 2008)) to 30.7 months (trastuzumab emtansine; Verma et al. (N Engl J Med 367:1783-91, 2012)). In the third-line setting, the association of lapatinib and trastuzumab has demonstrated to improve OS to 4.5 months compared with lapatinib alone (14 months vs. 9.5 months; Blackwell et al. (J Clin Oncol 30:2585-92, 2012)). CONCLUSIONS: HER2-directed therapies had an undeniable beneficial impact on the OS of patients with HER2+ mBC. The triple combination of docetaxel, pertuzumab and trastuzumab is associated with a survival extent of more than 4.5 years, compared with a life expectancy of 1.5 years achieved 14 years ago.

Number needed to harm in the post-marketing safety evaluation: results for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone.

PURPOSE: Our aim is to investigate the usefulness of metric indices in post-marketing safety evaluations by estimating number needed to harm (NNH) values for cardiovascular (CV) adverse outcomes for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. METHODS: Reports from regulatory authorities (RAs) were consulted, and Medline searches were performed to identify studies assessing CV risks [all-cause death, CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or congestive heart failure (CHF)] for thiazolidinediones. Meta-analyses were performed to pool evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS). NNHs [with 95% confidence intervals (CI)] per year were estimated for CV adverse events. RESULTS: Reports from RAs included two meta-analyses of short-term RCTs, two long-term RCTs (RECORD and PROACTIVE), and a systematic review of OS (n = 29). The Medline search identified six additional OS. Statistically significant NNH values were obtained for the following: (i) rosiglitazone versus control on MI and CHF in the meta-analysis of RCTs (NNH = 16; 95%CI = 10-255; and NNH = 7; 95%CI = 5-16, respectively) and meta-analysis of OS (NNH = 12; 95%CI = 9-20; and NNH = 5; 95%CI = 32-131, respectively) and on CHF in the RECORD (NNH = 6; 95%CI = 4-14); (ii) pioglitazone versus control on CHF (NNH = 11; 95%CI = 6, 403) in the meta-analysis of RCTs and PROACTIVE (NNH = 12; 95%CI = 8-43); and (iii) rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone on MI (NNH = 69; 95%CI = 32-379), stroke (NNH = 36; 95%CI = 20-225), CHF (NNH = 33; 95%CI = 19-47), and all-cause death (NNH = 63; 95%CI = 49-100) in the meta-analysis of OS. CONCLUSION: The NNH values suggested an increased CV risk with rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone across several sources of information. The inclusion of objective metrics in post-marketing drug's benefit-risk assessments could be of increased value and help RAs to make consistent decisions on drug safety.

Nurses' spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: expert review of routine reports.

AIM: The aims of this study were to analyse spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions according to their previous description, seriousness, causality and the reporting professional. BACKGROUND: Previous findings showed that fewer nurses than physicians and pharmacists report adverse drug reactions. This is not attributed to any lack of ability in identifying adverse drug reactions. METHOD: Adverse drug reactions received by the Central Portugal Regional Pharmacovigilance Unit, between 2001 and 2011, were studied. Certain and probable adverse drug reactions were included to test differences between professional groups for serious and non-serious adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: The Central Portugal Regional Pharmacovigilance Unit received 1014 adverse drug reactions. Fifty-four nurses reported 66 adverse drug reactions, whereas 232 physicians and 145 pharmacists reported 589 and 357 adverse drug reactions, respectively. Considering the number of practising professionals, it was estimated that 0.55% of nurses, 3.96% of physicians and 7.08% of pharmacists have reported an adverse drug reaction. Of the 633 adverse drug reactions assessed as certain or probable, 46 (21 serious), 387 (192 serious) and 198 (77 serious) were reported from nurses, physicians and pharmacists, respectively. There were no differences in the reporting of serious adverse drug reactions among nurses, physicians and pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses are able to identify serious adverse drug reactions although they report less than other professionals. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurses need to increase their involvement in spontaneous reporting schemes by taking responsibility for routinely reporting suspected adverse drug reactions.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screenings in Portugal.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening in Portugal, and its consequences on cancer morbidity and mortality. METHODS: The pre-pandemic and pandemic periods were compared using publicly available data on performance and health outcomes indicators of the Portuguese NHS, namely the numbers and proportions of eligible individuals who underwent cancer screening (breast, cervical or colorectal). Pre-pandemic data were modelled to project hypothetical scenarios without a pandemic using an exponential smoothing algorithm, and then compared with data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Markov model was developed to estimate years of life lost (YLL) due the reduction in the number of cancer screenings during the pandemic. The MS Excel and the PRISM symbolic model checker software were used. RESULTS: There was a decrease in the number of breast (13 %), cervical (15 %) and colorectal (9-11 %) cancers screenings during the first two years of the pandemic. The model projections are 506, 41, and 148 additional deaths, losses of 11, 6, and 4 months of life per patient, and 12.8 thousand, 576, and 4 thousand YLL by the population due to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively, over a 25-year time horizon in Portugal. CONCLUSIONS: The disruption in cancer screening may contribute to increase cancer morbidity and mortality, with significant YLL. The long-term implications of the impaired cancer screening should be assessed, and proactive measures put in place to mitigate the increase in cancer morbidity, and mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world evidence has been published evaluating the anti-nonvertebral fracture effect of ibandronate. AIM: This meta-analysis of observational studies assessed the effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis. METHOD: Pubmed/Embase databases were searched for observational studies. Risks of nonvertebral fractures and hip fractures were the outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed pooling rate ratios (RRs), using random-effects models. Data were reanalysed in sensitivity analyses considering Knapp-Hartung method and Bayesian random-effects. RESULTS: Six cohort studies were included. Overall, once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate reduced the risk of nonvertebral fractures (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.94). Similar results were obtained when the comparison was restricted to once-monthly 150 mg risedronate, but no differences were found when the comparator was other oral bisphosphonates (weekly alendronate/risedronate). Ibandronate didn't significantly change the risk of hip fractures (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.89-1.76). The risk of hip fracture was comparable between once monthly, 150 mg oral ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. Intravenous ibandronate was not effective in reducing hip fractures comparing to intravenous zoledronate. The low number of studies diminished the robustness of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate may be as effective as other oral bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures. However, uncertainty associated to the small number of included studies, which are characterized by heterogeneous demographics and methodologies, precluded definitive conclusions.

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.

Topical Janus kinase inhibitors in atopic dermatitis: a safety network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are being developed for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis. However, comparative evidence on their safety profiles is still limited. AIM: This study aimed to compare the relative safety of topic JAK inhibitors in patients with atopic dermatitis. METHOD: Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of topical JAK inhibitors in atopic dermatitis were searched on Medline, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov. The following outcomes were considered: any adverse event (AE), serious AEs, AEs leading to treatment discontinuation, any infection, any application site reaction. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were included in this network meta-analysis. Tofacitinib was associated with a reduced risk of any AE when compared with ruxolitinib (OR 0.18, 95% CrI 0.03-0.92). The analyses for the remaining outcomes did not identify other statistically significant risk differences between the topical JAK inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Although tofacitinib seems to present a reduced risk of any adverse event compared with ruxolitinib, this was the only statistically significant result found between JAK inhibitors. Therefore, such findings should be interpreted with caution considering the scarce data available and the heterogeneity between the studies, and there is no robust evidence allowing pointing out clinically important differences between the safety profiles of the existing topical JAK inhibitors. Further pharmacovigilance activities are needed to confirm the safety profile of these drugs.