Artificial intelligence-based literature data warehouse for vaccine safety / 中华流行病学杂志

Objective: To establish a sustainable updated literature data warehouse for global vaccine safety assessment, and provide data support for evidence-based vaccine safety assessment. Methods: Semi-automated construction and updating of a literature data warehouse were achieved through the continuous integration of standard operating steps of evidence-based reviews with artificial intelligence technologies. Following the standard procedure of a systematic literature review, the literatures about vaccine safety assessment published before November 29, 2020 were retrieved from 9 databases including OVID, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrails.org in English and Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, and SinoMed in Chinese. Literatures were screened for two rounds in a semi-automatic manner (by artificial intelligence literature processing system and manual work) according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Furthermore, the literatures were classified according to the types of vaccines and adverse events. The updating strategy was established, and the literature data warehouse was updated regularly. Experts were organized to select specific vaccine safety topics and carry out special demonstration studies. Results: More than 0.41 million articles were retrieved. According to the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 23 304 articles were included after two rounds of screening. At present, we have selected and completed three prior topics as demonstration studies, including the systematic review of "DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccine and encephalopathy/encephalitis", and the classified management of literatures about allergic purpura and brachial plexus neuritis. Conclusions: The sustainable updated literature data warehouse of vaccine safety can provide high-quality research data for vaccine safety research, including evidence support for immunization related policy-making and adjustment and vaccine safety-related methodological research or clinical tool development; and further demonstration studies can provide references for building a new methodological framework system for timely and efficient completion of the evidence-based assessment of vaccine safety.

Clinical research progress and implications of therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer and precancerous lesions: a qualitative systematic review / 中华肿瘤杂志

Objective: To systematically summarize and analyze the clinical research progress of therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer or precancerous lesions. Methods: English databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Proquest, and ClinicalTrails.gov) and Chinese databases (SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP Database) were systematically searched to collect literature on therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer or precancerous lesions from inception to February 18, 2021. After screening, we evaluated the risk of bias of included studies, and combed the basic information of the literature, research designs, information of vaccines, study patients, outcome indicators and so on, qualitatively summarized the clinical research progress. Results: A total of 71 studies were included in this systematic review, including 14 random controlled trials, 15 quasi-random controlled trials, 4 cohort studies, 1 case-control study, 34 case series studies and 3 case reports. The study patients included women aged 15~79 with cervical cancer or precancerous lesions in 18 countries from 1989 to 2021. On the one hand, there were 40 studies on therapeutic vaccines for cervical precancerous lesions (22 867 participants), involving 21 kinds of vaccines in 6 categories. Results showed 3 marketed vaccines (Cervarix, Gardasil, Gardasil 9) as adjuvant immunotherapies were significant effective in preventing the recurrence of precancerous lesions compared with the conization only. In addition, MVA E2 vaccine had been in phase Ⅲ clinical trials as a specific therapeutic vaccine, with relative literature showing it could eliminate most high-grade precancerous lesions. Therapeutic vaccines for precancerous lesions all showed good safety. On the other hand, there were 31 studies on therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer (781 participants), involving 19 kinds of vaccines in 7categories, with none had been marketed. 25 studies were with no control group, showing the vaccines could effectively eliminate solid tumors, prevent recurrence, and prolong the median survival time. However, the vaccines effectiveness couldn't be statistically calculated due to the lack of a control group. As for the safety of therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer, 9 studies showed that patients experienced serious adverse events after treatments, where 7 studies reported that serious adverse events occurred in patients couldn't be ruled out as the results of therapeutic vaccines. Conclusions: The literature review shows that the literature evidence for the therapeutic vaccines for cervical precancerous lesions is relatively mature compared with the therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer. The four kinds of vaccines on the market are all therapeutic vaccines for precancerous lesions, but they are generally used as vaginal infection treatments or adjuvant immunotherapies for cervical precancerous lesions, not used for the specific treatments of cervical precancerous lesions. Other specific therapeutic vaccines are in the early stage of clinical trials, mainly phase Ⅰ/Ⅱ clinical trials with small sample size. The effectiveness and safety data are limited, and further research is still needed.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of 32 pharmacological interventions recommended by guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 66 trials / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

BACKGROUND@#The global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major public health problem and presents an unprecedented challenge. However, no specific drugs were currently proven. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in patients with COVID-19.@*METHODS@#Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/SARS-CoV. Random-effects network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was performed, followed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system assessing the quality of evidence. The primary outcome of interest includes mortality, cure, viral negative conversion, and overall adverse events (OAEs). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as the measure of effect size.@*RESULTS@#Sixty-six RCTs with 19,095 patients were included, involving standard of care (SOC), eight different antiviral agents, six different antibiotics, high and low dose chloroquine (CQ_HD, CQ_LD), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), corticosteroids (COR), and other treatments. Compared with SOC, a significant reduction of mortality was observed for TCM (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.56, moderate quality) and COR (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96, low quality) with improved cure rate (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.60-2.91, low quality for TCM; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05-1.30, low quality for COR). However, an increased risk of mortality was found for CQ_HD vs. SOC (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.18-8.73, low quality). TCM was associated with decreased risk of OAE (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.70, very low quality) but CQ_HD (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.20-5.24) and interferons (IFN) (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.02-7.08) vs. SOC with very low quality were associated with an increased risk.@*CONCLUSIONS@#COR and TCM may reduce mortality and increase cure rate with no increased risk of OAEs compared with standard care. CQ_HD might increase the risk of mortality. CQ, IFN, and other antiviral agents could increase the risk of OAEs. The current evidence is generally uncertain with low-quality and further high-quality trials are needed.