1
|
Ghosn L, Assi R, Evrenoglou T, Buckley BS, Henschke N, Probyn K, Riveros C, Davidson M, Graña C, Bonnet H, Jarde A, Ávila C, Nejstgaard CH, Menon S, Ferrand G, Kapp P, Breuer C, Schmucker C, Sguassero Y, Nguyen TV, Devane D, Meerpohl JJ, Rada G, Hróbjartsson A, Grasselli G, Tovey D, Ravaud P, Chaimani A, Boutron I. Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 6:CD013881. [PMID: 37260086 PMCID: PMC10237088 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013881.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022. The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lina Ghosn
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Rouba Assi
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Theodoros Evrenoglou
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | | | | | | | - Carolina Riveros
- Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Mauricia Davidson
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Carolina Graña
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Hillary Bonnet
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Alexander Jarde
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | | | - Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Open Patient data Explorative Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | | | | | - Philipp Kapp
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Claudia Breuer
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christine Schmucker
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany
| | | | | | - Declan Devane
- Evidence Synthesis Ireland, Galway, Ireland
- Cochrane Ireland and HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland
- University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Joerg J Meerpohl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Gabriel Rada
- Epistemonikos Foundation, Santiago, Chile
- UC Evidence Center, Cochrane Chile Associated Center, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Open Patient data Explorative Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Giacomo Grasselli
- Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Philippe Ravaud
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| | - Isabelle Boutron
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, F-75004, Paris, France
- Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, Center for Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Esmail LC, Kapp P, Assi R, Wood J, Regan G, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Sharing of Individual Patient-Level Data by Trialists of Randomized Clinical Trials of Pharmacological Treatments for COVID-19. JAMA 2023; 329:1695-1697. [PMID: 37010865 PMCID: PMC10071396 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.4590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Accepted: 03/09/2023] [Indexed: 04/04/2023]
Abstract
This study describes access to individual patient-level data from randomized clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine whether the intent to share what was reported in the registry, publication, or preprint was consistent with actual data access.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura C. Esmail
- Université Paris Cité, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Paris, France
| | - Philipp Kapp
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Rouba Assi
- Université Paris Cité, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Paris, France
| | | | | | - Philippe Ravaud
- Université Paris Cité, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Paris, France
| | - Isabelle Boutron
- Université Paris Cité, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Graña C, Ghosn L, Evrenoglou T, Jarde A, Minozzi S, Bergman H, Buckley BS, Probyn K, Villanueva G, Henschke N, Bonnet H, Assi R, Menon S, Marti M, Devane D, Mallon P, Lelievre JD, Askie LM, Kredo T, Ferrand G, Davidson M, Riveros C, Tovey D, Meerpohl JJ, Grasselli G, Rada G, Hróbjartsson A, Ravaud P, Chaimani A, Boutron I. Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 12:CD015477. [PMID: 36473651 PMCID: PMC9726273 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015477] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes. We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available. This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carolina Graña
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Lina Ghosn
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Theodoros Evrenoglou
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Alexander Jarde
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Hillary Bonnet
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Rouba Assi
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | | | - Melanie Marti
- Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Declan Devane
- Evidence Synthesis Ireland, Cochrane Ireland and HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
| | - Patrick Mallon
- UCD Centre for Experimental Pathogen Host Research and UCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Jean-Daniel Lelievre
- Department of Clinical Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Henri Mondor Hospital, Vaccine Research Institute, Université Paris Est Créteil, Paris, France
| | - Lisa M Askie
- Quality Assurance Norms and Standards Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Tamara Kredo
- Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
| | | | - Mauricia Davidson
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Carolina Riveros
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | | | - Joerg J Meerpohl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Giacomo Grasselli
- Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Gabriel Rada
- Epistemonikos Foundation, Santiago, Chile
- UC Evidence Center, Cochrane Chile Associated Center, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
- Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Open Patient data Explorative Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Philippe Ravaud
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Isabelle Boutron
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
- Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Assi R, Schwab C, El Abd A, Fernandez C, Hindlet P. Which Potentially Inappropriate Medications List Can Detect Patients At Risk of Readmissions in the Older Adult Population Admitted for Falls? An Observational Multicentre Study Using a Clinical Data Warehouse. Drugs Aging 2022; 39:175-182. [PMID: 35118603 DOI: 10.1007/s40266-022-00921-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Hospital readmissions are common in the older adult population and potentially inappropriate medications are known to be involved in these readmissions. Several lists of potentially inappropriate medications have been published in diverse countries in order to adapt the lists to local specificities. Among them, the Beers Criteria® were first published in 1991 in the USA, followed by the French Laroche list, the Norwegian NORGEP criteria, the German PRISCUS list, the Austrian consensus panel list and the European list, EU-7. The main objective was to detect which potentially inappropriate medications list can better detect hospital readmissions within 30 days in the older adult population hospitalised for fall-related injuries. METHODS We conducted a multicentre, observational, retrospective cohort study. Data from older patients initially hospitalised for falls in 2019 and discharged home were retrieved from the Clinical Data Warehouse. Exposure to potentially inappropriate medications was classified according to the six lists mentioned above. The local ethics committee approved the study protocol (number CER-2020-79). RESULTS After adjustments using propensity score matching, taking a potentially inappropriate medication as per the Laroche and PRISCUS lists was associated with a 30-day hospital readmission with an odds ratio of 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.06-2.37) and 1.68 (95% confidence interval 1.13-2.50), respectively, while the other four studied lists showed no associations with readmissions. CONCLUSIONS Our study evidenced that not all lists published allow the accurate prediction of hospital readmissions to the same extent. We found that the Laroche and PRISCUS lists were associated with increased 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions after an index admission with a fall-related injury.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rouba Assi
- GHU AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Pharmacie, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Paris, France
| | - Camille Schwab
- GHU AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Pharmacie, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Paris, France. .,Département de Pharmacie Clinique, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université Paris-Saclay, Chatenay-Malabry, France.
| | - Asmae El Abd
- GHU AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Pharmacie, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Paris, France
| | - Christine Fernandez
- GHU AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Pharmacie, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Paris, France.,Département de Pharmacie Clinique, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université Paris-Saclay, Chatenay-Malabry, France
| | - Patrick Hindlet
- GHU AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Pharmacie, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Paris, France.,Département de Pharmacie Clinique, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université Paris-Saclay, Chatenay-Malabry, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Daccache A, Feghali E, Assi R, Sleiman Z. Unplanned adnexectomy for ovarian cystadenoma with undiagnosed autoamputation of the contralateral ovary, lessons learned from medical mistakes. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2021; 13:187-190. [PMID: 34184850 PMCID: PMC8291982 DOI: 10.52054/fvvo.13.2.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Autoamputation of the ovary is a rare occurrence of uncertain aetiology with only a few cases reported in literature. It usually develops following ovarian torsion or torsion of a dermoid cyst with subsequent necrosis of the pedicle and autoamputation. We present the case of a 42 year-old woman was admitted for a laparoscopic removal of a right ovarian cyst. The ultrasound showed a right ovarian cystic mass suggestive of a cystadenoma, and another heterogeneous small echogenic cyst of the left ovary. During laparoscopy, excessive bleeding from the ovarian cortex complicated the cyst stripping and, considering the age of the patient and the emerging technical difficulty of the procedure, a total adnexectomy for the right ovary was performed. While exploring the small cyst on the left ovary, a dermoid cyst was found in the Douglas pouch. This finding could be interpreted as an autoamputation of the adnexa due to an asymptomatic torsion of a previous ovarian cyst arising from the left ovary. Medical errors could occur due to lack of knowledge, expertise, as well as lack of training and surgical skills, but also due to an unfortunate association of very rare confounding factors. Even in the hands of experts, following the basic rules of surgery remains a milestone in teaching and preventing surgical complications.
Collapse
|
6
|
Assi R, Özger-İlhan S, İlhan M. Health needs and access to health care: the case of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Public Health 2019; 172:146-152. [DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2018] [Revised: 05/02/2019] [Accepted: 05/07/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
7
|
Abdallah M, Zaafarany I, El Wanees SA, Assi R. Corrosion Behavior of Nickel Electrode in NaOH Solution and Its Inhibition by Some Natural Oils. INT J ELECTROCHEM SC 2014; 9:1071-1086. [DOI: 10.1016/s1452-3981(23)07779-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/02/2023]
|
8
|
Assi R, Brownson K, Hall M, Vasilas P, Chaar C, Dardik A. Advanced Age and Disease Predict Lack of Satisfaction After Iliac Stent Placement. J Surg Res 2014. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.11.331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
9
|
Williams W, Protack C, Assi R, Hall M, Vasilas P, Dardik A. Metabolic Syndrome is Associated with Restenosis After Carotid Endarterectomy. J Surg Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.10.108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
10
|
Protack C, Lu D, Yamamoto K, Williams W, Assi R, Hall M, Dardik A. Cytoplasmic Tyrosine 774 is Critical for Eph-B4 Function. J Surg Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.10.671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
11
|
Assi R, Kessler HP, Clark CL. Oral and maxillofacial pathology case of the month. Varix with phlebolith. Tex Dent J 2012; 129:684-713. [PMID: 22916526] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Rouba Assi
- Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Texas A&M Health Science Center-Baylor College of Dentistry, Dallas, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Willard D, Monteil H, Piemont Y, Assi R, Messer J, Lavillaureix J, Minck R, Gandar R. [Exfoliatin in neonatal staphylococcal infections]. Nouv Presse Med 1982; 11:3769-71. [PMID: 7155881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
An outbreak of staphylococcal skin infection in neonates was investigated clinically, bacteriologically and epidemiologically with the following findings: (1) In 8 out of 13 cases, exfoliatin-producing staphylococci were present in the bullae, which is unusual with bullous lesions occurring at other ages; (2) exfoliatin producing staphylococci were present in all children with bullous lesions, as well as in carriers; (3) 39% of the phage II group staphylococci studied produced exfoliatin; (4) purulent lesions due to phage II staphylococci which did not produce exfoliatin were observed. The contaminating agent could be identified in most cases.
Collapse
|