Current practice in the measurement and interpretation of intervention adherence in randomised controlled trials : A systematic review

Background Ideally all participants in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) should fully receive their allocated intervention; however, this rarely occurs in practice. Intervention adherence affects Type II error so influences the interpretation of trial results and subsequent implementation. We aimed to describe current practice in the definition, measurement, and reporting of intervention adherence in non-pharmacological RCTs, and how this data is incorporated into a trial's interpretation and conclusions. Methods We conducted a systematic review of phase III RCTs published between January 2018 and June 2020 in the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library for the Health Technology Assessment, Programme Grants for Applied Research, and Public Health Research funding streams. Results Of 237 reports published, 76 met the eligibility criteria and were included. Most RCTs (n = 68, 89.5%) reported adherence, though use of terminology varied widely; nearly three quarters of these (n = 49, 72.1%) conducted a sensitivity analysis. Adherence measures varied between intervention types: behavioural change (n = 10, 43.5%), psychological therapy (n = 5, 83.3%) and physiotherapy/rehabilitation (n = 8, 66.7%) interventions predominately measured adherence based on session attendance. Whereas medical device and surgical interventions (n = 17, 73.9%) primarily record the number of participants receiving the allocated intervention, a third (n = 33, 67.3%) of studies reported a difference in findings between primary and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Although most trials report elements of adherence, terminology was inconsistent, and there was no systematic approach to its measurement, analyses, interpretation, or reporting. Given the importance of adherence within clinical trials, there is a pressing need for a standardised approach or framework

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

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

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

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

Organisational models supported by technology for the management of diabetic disease and its complications in a diabetic clinic setting: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial targeting type 2 diabetes individuals with non-ideal glycaemic values (Telemechron study)

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a non-communicable disease representing one of the most serious public health challenges of the twenty-first century. Its incidence continues to rise in both developed and developing countries, causing the death of 1.5 million people every year. The use of technology (e.g. smartphone application-App) in the health field has progressively increased as it has been proved to be effective in helping individuals manage their long-term diseases. Therefore, it has the potential to reduce the use of health service and its related costs. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of using a digital platform called "TreC Diabete" embedded into a novel organisational asset targeting poorly controlled T2DM individuals in the Autonomous Province of Trento (PAT), Italy. Methods: This trial was designed as a multi-centre, open-label, randomised, superiority study with two parallel groups and a 1:1 allocation ratio. Individuals regularly attending outpatient diabetes clinics, providing informed consent, are randomised to be prescribed TreC Diabete platform as part of their personalised care plan. Healthcare staff members will remotely assess the data shared by the participants through the App by using a dedicated online medical dashboard. The primary end-point is the evaluation of the Hb1Ac level at 12-month post-randomisation. Data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Discussion: This trial is the first conducted in the PAT area for the use of an App specifically designed for individuals with poorly controlled T2DM. If the effects of introducing this specific App within a new organisational asset are positive, the digital platform will represent a possible way for people diagnosed with T2DM to better manage their health in the future. Results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals once the study is completed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05629221. Registered on November 29, 2022, prior start of inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Italian Guidelines for the Management of Sporadic Primary Hyperparathyroidism

Aim This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a clinical practice reference for the management of sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) in adults. PHPT management in pregnancy was not considered. Methods This GL has been developed following the methods described in the Manual of the Italian National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinology (AME) and Societ & agrave; Italiana dell'Osteoporosi, del Metabolismo Minerale e delle Malattie dello Scheletro (SIOMMMS) identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" were considered in the systematic review of evidence. Those classified as "critical" were considered for the clinical practice recommendations. Results The present GL provides recommendations about the roles of pharmacological and surgical treatment for the clinical management of sporadic PHPT. Parathyroidectomy is recommended in comparison to surveillance or pharmacologic treatment in any adult (outside of pregnancy) or elderly subject diagnosed with sporadic PHPT who is symptomatic or meets any of the following criteria: center dot Serum calcium levels >1 mg/dL above the upper limit of normal range. center dot Urinary calcium levels >4 mg/kg/day. center dot Osteoporosis disclosed by DXA examination and/or any fragility fracture. center dot Renal function impairment (eGFR <60 mL/min). center dot Clinic or silent nephrolithiasis. center dot Age <= 50 years. Monitoring and treatment of any comorbidity or complication of PHPT at bone, kidney, or cardiovascular level are suggested for patients who do not meet the criteria for surgery or are not operated on for any reason. Sixteen indications for good clinical practice are provided in addition to the recommendations. Conclusion The present GL is directed to endocrinologists and surgeons - working in hospitals, territorial services or private practice - and to general practitioners and patients. The recommendations should also consider the patient's preferences and the available resources and expertise