Explore the vast range of titles available.

To quantify the risk of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after covid-19. Self-controlled case series and matched cohort study. National registries in Sweden. 1 057 174 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021 in Sweden, matched on age, sex, and county of residence to 4 076 342 control participants. Self-controlled case series and conditional Poisson regression were used to determine the incidence rate ratio and risk ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for a first deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or bleeding event. In the self-controlled case series, the incidence rate ratios for first time outcomes after covid-19 were determined using set time intervals and the spline model. The risk ratios for first time and all events were determined during days 1-30 after covid-19 or index date using the matched cohort study, and adjusting for potential confounders (comorbidities, cancer, surgery, long term anticoagulation treatment, previous venous thromboembolism, or previous bleeding event). Compared with the control period, incidence rate ratios were significantly increased 70 days after covid-19 for deep vein thrombosis, 110 days for pulmonary embolism, and 60 days for bleeding. In particular, incidence rate ratios for a first pulmonary embolism were 36.17 (95% confidence interval 31.55 to 41.47) during the first week after covid-19 and 46.40 (40.61 to 53.02) during the second week. Incidence rate ratios during days 1-30 after covid-19 were 5.90 (5.12 to 6.80) for deep vein thrombosis, 31.59 (27.99 to 35.63) for pulmonary embolism, and 2.48 (2.30 to 2.68) for bleeding. Similarly, the risk ratios during days 1-30 after covid-19 were 4.98 (4.96 to 5.01) for deep vein thrombosis, 33.05 (32.8 to 33.3) for pulmonary embolism, and 1.88 (1.71 to 2.07) for bleeding, after adjusting for the effect of potential confounders. The rate ratios were highest in patients with critical covid-19 and highest during the first pandemic wave in Sweden compared with the second and third waves. In the same period, the absolute risk among patients with covid-19 was 0.039% (401 events) for deep vein thrombosis, 0.17% (1761 events) for pulmonary embolism, and 0.101% (1002 events) for bleeding. The findings of this study suggest that covid-19 is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding. These results could impact recommendations on diagnostic and prophylactic strategies against venous thromboembolism after covid-19.

ObjectivesTo perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying anti rheumatic dugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAn SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention for the management of RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments still without registry data (eg, sarilumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib, upadacitinib), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term extensions (LTEs) were used. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed according to standard procedures.ResultsForty-two observational studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, addressing safety outcomes with bDMARDs and sDMARDs. Nine studies showed no difference in the risk of serious infections across bDMARDs and two studies (high RoB) showed an increased risk with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 3.1–3.9). The risk of Herpes zoster infection was similar across bDMARDs, but one study showed an increased risk with tofacitinib compared with abatacept (adjusted HR (aHR) 2.0). Five studies showed no increased risk of cancer for bDMARDs compared with csDMARDs. An increased risk of lower intestinal perforation was found for tocilizumab compared with csDMARDs (aHR 4.5) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (aHR 2.6–4.0). Sixty manuscripts reported safety data from RCTs/LTEs. Overall, no unexpected safety outcomes were found, except for the possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with JAK inhibitors.ConclusionData obtained by this SLR confirm the known safety profile of bDMARDs. The risk of VTE in RA, especially in patients on JAK inhibitors, needs further evaluation.

ObjectivesTo perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic(s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsSLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention in RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments yet without, or limited, registry data, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were used.ResultsFifty-nine observational studies addressed the safety of DMARDs. Two studies (unclear risk of bias (RoB)) showed an increased risk of serious infections with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs. Herpes zoster infections occurred more with JAKi than csDMARDs (adjusted HR (aHR): 3.66) and bDMARDs (aHR: 1.9–2.3) (four studies, two low RoB). The risk of malignancies was similar across bDMARDs (five studies) and with tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs (one study, low RoB). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was similar with bDMARDs and tofacitinib (two studies, one low RoB). Thirty studies reported safety from RCTs, with one, designed to evaluate safety, showing that malignancies (HR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.04 to 2.09)) and MACE (HR (95% CI): 1.33 (0.91 to 1.94)) occurred numerically more frequently with tofacitinib (5 mg and 10 mg doses combined) than with TNFi in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. In this study, the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg than with TNFi.ConclusionThe safety profile of bDMARDs was further demonstrated. Whether the difference in incidence of malignancies, MACE and VTE between tofacitinib and TNFi applies to other JAKi needs further evaluation.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the association between risk of venous thromboembolism and use of different types of hormone replacement therapy.DesignTwo nested case-control studies.SettingUK general practices contributing to the QResearch or Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases, and linked to hospital, mortality, and social deprivation data.Participants80 396 women aged 40-79 with a primary diagnosis of venous thromboembolism between 1998 and 2017, matched by age, general practice, and index date to 391 494 female controls.Main outcome measuresVenous thromboembolism recorded on general practice, mortality, or hospital records. Odds ratios were adjusted for demographics, smoking status, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, recent medical events, and other prescribed drugs.ResultsOverall, 5795 (7.2%) women who had venous thromboembolism and 21 670 (5.5%) controls had been exposed to hormone replacement therapy within 90 days before the index date. Of these two groups, 4915 (85%)and 16 938 (78%) women used oral therapy, respectively, which was associated with a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism compared with no exposure (adjusted odds ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.52 to 1.64), for both oestrogen only preparations (1.40, 1.32 to 1.48) and combined preparations (1.73, 1.65 to 1.81). Estradiolhad a lower risk than conjugated equine oestrogen for oestrogen only preparations (0.85, 0.76 to 0.95) and combined preparations (0.83, 0.76 to 0.91). Compared with no exposure, conjugated equine oestrogen with medroxyprogesterone acetate had the highest risk (2.10, 1.92 to 2.31), and estradiol with dydrogesterone had the lowest risk (1.18, 0.98 to 1.42). Transdermal preparations were not associated with risk of venous thromboembolism, which was consistent for different regimens (overall adjusted odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.01).ConclusionsIn the present study, transdermal treatment was the safest type of hormone replacement therapy when risk of venous thromboembolism was assessed. Transdermal treatment appears to be underused, with the overwhelming preference still for oral preparations.

ObjectivesThis integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsTreatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks).Results3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups.ConclusionIn the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab.Trial registration numbersSELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847.

Advances in genomics and molecular biology have identified aberrant proteins in cancer cells that are attractive targets for cancer therapy. Because these proteins are overexpressed or dysregulated in cancer cells compared with normal cells, it was assumed that their inhibitors will be narrowly targeted and relatively nontoxic. However, this hope has not been achieved. Current targeted agents exhibit the same frequency and severity of toxicities as traditional cytotoxic agents, with the main difference being the nature of the toxic effects. Thus, the classical chemotherapy toxicities of alopecia, myelosuppression, mucositis, nausea, and vomiting have been generally replaced by vascular, dermatologic, endocrine, coagulation, immunologic, ocular, and pulmonary toxicities. These toxicities need to be recognized, prevented, and optimally managed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Rapid deployment of COVID-19 vaccines is challenging for safety surveillance, especially on adverse events of special interest (AESIs) that were not identified during the pre-licensure studies. This study evaluated the risk of hospitalisations for predefined diagnoses among the vaccinated population in Malaysia. Hospital admissions for selected diagnoses between 1 February 2021 and 30 September 2021 were linked to the national COVID-19 immunisation register. We conducted self-controlled case-series study by identifying individuals who received COVID-19 vaccine and diagnosis of thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, myocarditis/pericarditis, arrhythmia, stroke, Bell’s Palsy, and convulsion/seizure. The incidence of events was assessed in risk period of 21 days postvaccination relative to the control period. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with adjustment for calendar period. There was no increase in the risk for myocarditis/pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in the 21 days following either dose of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. A small increased risk of venous thromboembolism (IRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.02, 1.49), arrhythmia (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07, 1.26), and convulsion/seizure (IRR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07, 1.48) was observed among BNT162b2 recipients. No association between CoronaVac vaccine was found with all events except arrhythmia (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01, 1.30). ChAdOx1 vaccine was associated with an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (IRR 2.67; 95% CI 1.21, 5.89) and venous thromboembolism (IRR 2.22; 95% CI 1.17, 4.21). This study shows acceptable safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines among recipients of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. This information can be used together with effectiveness data for risk-benefit analysis of the vaccination program. Further surveillance with more data is required to assess AESIs following COVID-19 vaccination in short- and long-term.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a massive clinical challenge, annually affecting millions of patients globally. VTE is a particularly consequential pathology, as incidence is correlated with extremely common risk factors, and a large cohort of patients experience recurrent VTE after initial intervention. Altered hemodynamics, hypercoagulability, and damaged vascular tissue cause deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, the two permutations of VTE. Venous valves have been identified as likely locations for initial blood clot formation, but the exact pathway by which thrombosis occurs in this environment is not entirely clear. Several risk factors are known to increase the likelihood of VTE, particularly those that increase inflammation and coagulability, increase venous resistance, and damage the endothelial lining. While these risk factors are useful as predictive tools, VTE diagnosis prior to presentation of outward symptoms is difficult, chiefly due to challenges in successfully imaging deep-vein thrombi. Clinically, VTE can be managed by anticoagulants or mechanical intervention. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants and catheter-directed thrombolysis have emerged as leading tools in resolution of venous thrombosis. While a satisfactory VTE model has yet to be developed, recent strides have been made in advancing in silico models of venous hemodynamics, hemorheology, fluid–structure interaction, and clot growth. These models are often guided by imaging-informed boundary conditions or inspired by benchtop animal models. These gaps in knowledge are critical targets to address necessary improvements in prediction and diagnosis, clinical management, and VTE experimental and computational models.

Objective To investigate the association between use of combined oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolism, taking the type of progestogen into account.Design Two nested case-control studies.Setting General practices in the United Kingdom contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD; 618 practices) and QResearch primary care database (722 practices).Participants Women aged 15-49 years with a first diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in 2001-13, each matched with up to five controls by age, practice, and calendar year.Main outcome measures Odds ratios for incident venous thromboembolism and use of combined oral contraceptives in the previous year, adjusted for smoking status, alcohol consumption, ethnic group, body mass index, comorbidities, and other contraceptive drugs. Results were combined across the two datasets.Results 5062 cases of venous thromboembolism from CPRD and 5500 from QResearch were analysed. Current exposure to any combined oral contraceptive was associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (adjusted odds ratio 2.97, 95% confidence interval 2.78 to 3.17) compared with no exposure in the previous year. Corresponding risks associated with current exposure to desogestrel (4.28, 3.66 to 5.01), gestodene (3.64, 3.00 to 4.43), drospirenone (4.12, 3.43 to 4.96), and cyproterone (4.27, 3.57 to 5.11) were significantly higher than those for second generation contraceptives levonorgestrel (2.38, 2.18 to 2.59) and norethisterone (2.56, 2.15 to 3.06), and for norgestimate (2.53, 2.17 to 2.96). The number of extra cases of venous thromboembolism per year per 10 000 treated women was lowest for levonorgestrel (6, 95% confidence interval 5 to 7) and norgestimate (6, 5 to 8), and highest for desogestrel (14, 11 to 17) and cyproterone (14, 11 to 17).Conclusions In these population based, case-control studies using two large primary care databases, risks of venous thromboembolism associated with combined oral contraceptives were, with the exception of norgestimate, higher for newer drug preparations than for second generation drugs.

PurposeTo summarize available evidence comparing the transdermal and the oral administration routes of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature on multiple databases between January 1990 and December 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the transdermal and oral administration routes of estrogens for HRT in postmenopausal women regarding at least one of the outcomes of interest: cardiovascular risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE), lipid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, bone mineral density (BMD), and risk of pre-malignant and malignant endometrial lesions, or breast cancer.ResultsThe systematic literature search identified a total of 1369 manuscripts, of which 51 were included. Most studies were observational and of good quality, whereas the majority of randomized controlled trials presented a high or medium risk of bias. Oral and transdermal administration routes are similar regarding BMD, glucose metabolism, and lipid profile improvements, as well as do not appear different regarding breast cancer, endometrial disease, and cardiovascular risk. Identified literature provides clear evidence only for the VTE risk, which is higher with the oral administration route.ConclusionsAvailable evidence comparing the transdermal and oral administration routes for HRT is limited and of low quality, recommending further investigations. VTE risk can be considered the clearest and strongest clinical difference between the two administration routes, supporting the transdermal HRT as safer than the oral administration route.