Métodos cuantitativos aplicados a la investigación farmacoepidemiológica

La farmacoepidemiología se podría definir como una ciencia que aplica el conocimiento, métodos y razonamiento epidemiológico al estudio de los usos, efectos beneficiosos y riesgos de los medicamentos en grandes poblaciones. En general, los estudios farmacoepidemiológicos suelen adoptar la forma de estudios observacionales (estudios en los que no existe asignación del tratamiento por parte del investigador), aunque no todas las preguntas en farmacoepidemiología pueden resolverse con un único diseño de estudio, de modo que, en función de la pregunta de investigación, se pueden utilizar una gran variedad de diseños de investigación. Cuando un medicamento llega al mercado, su eficacia a corto y medio plazo se ha demostrado en unos miles de pacientes, habitualmente en ensayos clínicos frente a placebo en poblaciones seleccionadas, siendo la información sobre seguridad en esos momentos limitada, ya que la mayor parte de los estudios previos a la autorización son incapaces de identificar los efectos adversos poco frecuentes. Además, en la práctica clínica habitual, los medicamentos se suelen utilizar durante periodos más largos y con pautas de administración o indicaciones más lábiles que las autorizadas y su uso se extiende a grupos vulnerables (p.ej., pacientes ancianos, con múltiples enfermedades y polimedicados)..

Mortality in Persons With Autism Spectrum Disorder or Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are childhood-onset disorders that may persist into adulthood. Several studies have suggested that they may be associated with an increased risk of mortality; however, the results are inconsistent. Objective: To assess the risk of mortality among persons with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives. Data sources: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (published from inception to April 1, 2021) was supplemented by searching reference lists of the retrieved articles. Study selection: Cohort and case-control studies that reported mortality rate ratios (RRs) in persons with ASD or ADHD and/or their first-degree relatives compared with the general population or those without ASD/ADHD were included. Data extraction and synthesis: Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by at least 2 researchers independently. A random-effects model was used to meta-analyze individual studies and assessed heterogeneity (I2). Main outcomes and measures: All-cause mortality in association with ASD or ADHD. Secondary outcome was cause-specific mortality. Results: Twenty-seven studies were included, with a total of 642 260 individuals. All-cause mortality was found to be higher for persons with ASD (154 238 participants; 12 studies; RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.97-2.85; I2, 89%; moderate confidence) and persons with ADHD (396 488 participants; 8 studies; RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.13-4.02; I2, 98%; low confidence) than for the general population. Among persons with ASD, deaths from natural causes (4 studies; RR, 3.80; 95% CI, 2.06-7.01; I2, 96%; low confidence) and deaths from unnatural causes were increased (6 studies; RR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.49-4.18; I2, 95%; low confidence). Among persons with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (4 studies; RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.89-2.96; I2, 88%; low confidence), but deaths from unnatural causes were higher than expected (10 studies; RR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.73-4.55; I2, 92%; low confidence). Conclusions and relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ASD and ADHD are associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality. Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups. The substantial heterogeneity between studies should be explored further.This study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Drs Catalá-López and Tabarés-Seisdedos received funding from the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental, Institute of Health Carlos III, and Generalitat Valencia. Dr Page received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award. Dr Hutton received support from a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. Dr Ridao received support from the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network and Institute of Health Carlos III.S

Cancer and central nervous system disorders: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and updated meta-analyses of observational studies

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study will be to synthesize the epidemiological evidence and evaluate the validity of the associations between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: We will perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews and conduct updated meta-analyses of observational studies (cohort and case-control) investigating the association between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from any cancer or specific types of cancer. Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science will be used to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. In addition, online databases will be checked for observational studies published outside the time frames of previous reviews. Eligible central nervous system disorders will be Alzheimer's disease, anorexia nervosa, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, depression, Down's syndrome, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. The primary outcomes will be cancer incidence and cancer mortality in association with a central nervous system disorder. Secondary outcome measures will be site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, respectively. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study quality/risk of bias will be appraised by two reviewers independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary observational studies will be conducted where appropriate. Parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity are pre-specified. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for determining the quality of evidence for cancer outcomes. DISCUSSION: Our study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the associations between central nervous system disorders and cancer and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important site-specific cancer outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016052762

Cardiovascular and renal outcomes of renin-angiotensin system blockade in adult patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with network meta-analyses

Medications aimed at inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) have been used extensively for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications in patients with diabetes, but data that compare their clinical effectiveness are limited. We aimed to compare the effects of classes of RAS blockers on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in adults with diabetes

The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: A systematic review with network meta-analyses of randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in childhood. A wide variety of treatments have been used for the management of ADHD. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological, psychological and complementary and alternative medicine interventions for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses. Randomised controlled trials (≥ 3 weeks follow-up) were identified from published and unpublished sources through searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (up to April 7, 2016). Interventions of interest were pharmacological (stimulants, non-stimulants, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other unlicensed drugs), psychological (behavioural, cognitive training and neurofeedback) and complementary and alternative medicine (dietary therapy, fatty acids, amino acids, minerals, herbal therapy, homeopathy, and physical activity). The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). Secondary outcomes included discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), as well as serious adverse events and specific adverse events. Random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain estimates as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals. We analysed interventions by class and individually. 190 randomised trials (52 different interventions grouped in 32 therapeutic classes) that enrolled 26114 participants with ADHD were included in complex networks. At the class level, behavioural therapy (alone or in combination with stimulants), stimulants, and non-stimulant seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Behavioural therapy in combination with stimulants seemed superior to stimulants or non-stimulants. Stimulants seemed superior to behavioural therapy, cognitive training and non-stimulants. Behavioural therapy, stimulants and their combination showed the best profile of acceptability. Stimulants and non-stimulants seemed well tolerated. Among medications, methylphenidate, amphetamine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and clonidine seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Methylphenidate and amphetamine seemed more efficacious than atomoxetine and guanfacine. Methylphenidate and clonidine seemed better accepted than placebo and atomoxetine. Most of the efficacious pharmacological treatments were associated with harms (anorexia, weight loss and insomnia), but an increased risk of serious adverse events was not observed. There is lack of evidence for cognitive training, neurofeedback, antidepressants, antipsychotics, dietary therapy, fatty acids, and other complementary and alternative medicine. Overall findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, small sample sizes of trials, short-term follow-up, and the absence of high-quality evidence; consequently, results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical differences may exist between the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment used for the management of ADHD. Uncertainties about therapies and the balance between benefits, costs and potential harms should be considered before starting treatment. There is an urgent need for high-quality randomised trials of the multiple treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents. PROSPERO, number CRD42014015008

Myopericarditis Associated with the Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine (NVX-CoV2373): A Retrospective Analysis of Individual Case Safety Reports from VigiBase

Abstract Background Myocarditis and pericarditis have been associated most notably with mRNA vaccines, but the association with a recently authorized adjuvated vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) is controversial. Objective The aim was to analyze the cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in association with NVX-CoV2373 reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) global database of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) for drug monitoring (VigiBase), applying disproportionality analyses. Patients and methods The main characteristics of the ICSRs reporting myopericarditis with NVX-CoV2373 have been summarized. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) as a measure of disproportionality for reported myopericarditis (November 1967–August 2022) have been calculated for NVX-CoV2373; mRNA and adenoviral vector-based vaccines were also included as a reference. Results In total, 61 ICSRs included NVX-CoV2373. Most of the reports originated in Australia (50; 82.0%); 24 (39.3%) were considered serious. None of them were fatal. The median age of individuals was 35.5 years old, and most were males (38; 62.3%). Chest pain was the most common co-reported event 43 (70.5%). The median induction period was 3 days after immunization. Increased disproportionality for myopericarditis was found for NVX-CoV2373 (ROR 14.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.22–18.67) and mRNA vaccines: BNT162b2 (ROR 17.15, 95% CI 16.88–17.42) and mRNA-1273 (ROR 6.92, 95% CI 6.77–7.08). Higher values were found in males. The adenoviral vector-based vaccine Ad26.COV2.S showed slightly increased disproportionality (ROR 1.83, 95% CI 1.70–1.98), whereas no increased disproportionality was found for ChAdOx1. Conclusions NVX-CoV2373 vaccine showed a similar increased disproportionality as mRNA vaccines. More evidence from controlled studies is necessary; however, a precautionary approach is warranted. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the potential occurrence of myopericarditis with this new vaccine