The MedDRA 5-level hierarchy demonstrated by using ‘common cold’ as an example.

<p>The MedDRA 5-level hierarchy demonstrated by using ‘common cold’ as an example.</p

Challenges in Coding Adverse Events in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Misclassification of adverse events in clinical trials can sometimes have serious consequences. Therefore, each of the many steps involved, from a patient's adverse experience to presentation in tables in publications, should be as standardised as possible, minimising the scope for interpretation. Adverse events are categorised by a predefined dictionary, e.g. MedDRA, which is updated biannually with many new categories. The objective of this paper is to study interobserver variation and other challenges of coding.</p> <h3>Methods</h3><p>Systematic review using PRISMA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. All studies were screened for eligibility by two authors.</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>Our search returned 520 unique studies of which 12 were included. Only one study investigated interobserver variation. It reported that 12% of the codes were evaluated differently by two coders. Independent physicians found that 8% of all the codes deviated from the original description. Other studies found that product summaries could be greatly affected by the choice of dictionary. With the introduction of MedDRA, it seems to have become harder to identify adverse events statistically because each code is divided in subgroups. To account for this, lumping techniques have been developed but are rarely used, and guidance on when to use them is vague. An additional challenge is that adverse events are censored if they already occurred in the run-in period of a trial. As there are more than 26 ways of determining whether an event has already occurred, this can lead to bias, particularly because data analysis is rarely performed blindly.</p> <h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There is a lack of evidence that coding of adverse events is a reliable, unbiased and reproducible process. The increase in categories has made detecting adverse events harder, potentially compromising safety. It is crucial that readers of medical publications are aware of these challenges. Comprehensive interobserver studies are needed.</p> </div

Description of included studies.

<p>Description of included studies.</p

Flow chart of the process of identifying studies.

<p>Flow chart of the process of identifying studies.</p

DataSheet_1_Self-sampling to identify pathogens and inflammatory markers in patients with acute sore throat: Feasibility study.docx

IntroductionSore throat is a common reason for overuse of antibiotics. The value of inflammatory or biomarkers in throat swab or saliva samples in predicting benefit from antibiotics is unknown.MethodsWe used the ‘person-based approach’ to develop an online tool to support self-swabbing and recruited adults and children with sore throats through participating general practices and social media. Participants took bacterial and viral swabs and a saliva sponge swab and passive drool sample. Bacterial swabs were cultured for streptococcus (Group A, B, C, F and G). The viral swab and saliva samples were tested using a routine respiratory panel PCR and Covid-19 PCR testing. We used remaining viral swab and saliva sample volume for biomarker analysis using a panel of 13 biomarkers.ResultsWe recruited 11 asymptomatic participants and 45 symptomatic participants. From 45 symptomatic participants, bacterial throat swab, viral throat swab, saliva sponge and saliva drool samples were returned by 41/45 (91.1%), 43/45 (95.6%), 43/45 (95.6%) and 43/45 (95.6%) participants respectively. Three saliva sponge and 6 saliva drool samples were of insufficient quantity. Two adult participants had positive bacterial swabs. Six participants had a virus detected from at least one sample (swab or saliva). All of the biomarkers assessed were detectable from all samples where there was sufficient volume for testing. For most biomarkers we found higher concentrations in the saliva samples. Due to low numbers, we were not able to compare biomarker concentrations in those who did and did not have a bacterial pathogen detected. We found no evidence of a difference between biomarker concentrations between the symptomatic and asymptomatic participants but the distributions were wide.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated that it is feasible for patients with sore throat to self-swab and provide saliva samples for pathogen and biomarker analysis. Typical bacterial and viral pathogens were detected but at low prevalence rates. Further work is needed to determine if measuring biomarkers using oropharyngeal samples can help to differentiate between viral and bacterial pathogens in patients classified as medium or high risk using clinical scores, in order to better guide antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate prescriptions.</p

Supplementary Material for: Thrombolysis for acute wake-up and unclear onset strokes with alteplase at 0.6 mg/kg in clinical practice: THAWS2 Study

Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) alteplase at 0.6 mg/kg for patients with acute wake-up or unclear onset strokes in clinical practice. Methods: This multicenter observational study enrolled acute ischemic stroke patients with last-known-well time >4.5 h who had mismatch between DWI and FLAIR and were treated with IV alteplase. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) after thrombolysis, all-cause deaths and all adverse events. The efficacy outcomes were favorable outcome defined as an mRS score of 0–1 or recovery to the same mRS score as the premorbid score, complete independence defined as an mRS score of 0–1 at 90 days, and change in NIHSS at 24 h from baseline. Results: Sixty-six patients (35 females; mean age, 74±11 years; premorbid complete independence, 54 [82%]; median NIHSS on admission, 11) were enrolled at 15 hospitals. Two patients (3%) had sICH. Median NIHSS changed from 11 (IQR, 6.75–16.25) at baseline to 5 (3–12.25) at 24 h after alteplase initiation (change, –4.8±8.1). At discharge, 31 patients (47%) had favorable outcome and 29 (44%) had complete independence. None died within 90 days. Twenty-three (35%) also underwent mechanical thrombectomy (no sICH, NIHSS change of –8.5±7.3), of whom 11 (48%) were completely independent at discharge. Conclusions: In real-world clinical practice, IV alteplase for unclear onset stroke patients with DWI-FLAIR mismatch provided safe and efficacious outcomes comparable to those in previous trials. Additional mechanical thrombectomy was performed safely in them