Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in the pediatric population: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a cornerstone of adult venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment. Recently, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DOACs in pediatrics have been performed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in the pediatric population. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from initiation up to August 20, 2022, for RCTs comparing DOACs to standard of care (SOC) in patients aged <18 years according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration CRD42022353870). The primary analysis was performed according to the anticoagulation intensity and clinical setting (ie, prophylaxis in cardiac disease or treatment in VTE). Efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and VTE. Safety outcomes were major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-MB, any bleeding, serious adverse events, and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included in the systematic review and 6 in the meta-analysis (3 prophylaxis in cardiac disease and 3 treatment in VTE). DOACs showed a significant reduction of VTE recurrence for treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.94) and a nonsignificant reduction in VTE occurrence in prophylaxis (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03-1.55). No differences were observed for any bleeding, serious AEs, and MB in prophylaxis. Nonsignificant trends were observed for clinically relevant non-MB, MB in treatment, and discontinuation due to AE in prophylaxis. We found a significant increase in discontinuation due to AE in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: DOAC treatment seems to reduce VTE compared with SOC without major safety issues in the pediatric population, whereas DOAC prophylaxis seems at least comparable to SOC.

Antibody Response to COVID-19 Booster Vaccination in Healthcare Workers.

Objective: To evaluate the mean increase of anti-S IgG antibody titer between the basal, pre-booster level to the titer assessed 14 days after the booster dose of BNT162b2. Patients and Methods: The RENAISSANCE study is an observational, longitudinal, prospective, population-based study, conducted on healthcare workers of Niguarda Hospital in Milan, Italy who received a BNT162b2 booster dose at least 180 days after their second dose or after positivity for SARS-CoV-2 and accepted to take part in the study. The RENAISSANCE study was conducted from January 1, 2021 through December 28, 2021. Findings: 1,738 subjects were enrolled among healthcare workers registered for the booster administration at our hospital. Overall, 0.4% of subjects were seronegative at the pre-booster evaluation, and 1 subject had a titer equal to 50 AU/ml: none of the evaluated subjects was seronegative after the booster dose. Thus, the efficacy of the booster in our population was universal. Mean increase of pre- to post-booster titer was more significant in subjects who never had SARS-CoV-2 (44 times CI 95% 42-46) compared to those who had it, before (33 times, CI 95% 13-70) or after the first vaccination cycle (12 times, CI 95% 11-14). Differently from sex, age and pre-booster titers affected the post-booster antibody response. Nevertheless, the post-booster titer was very similar in all subgroups, and independent of a prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, pre-booster titer, sex or age. Conclusion: Our study shows a potent universal antibody response of the booster dose of BNT162b2, regardless of pre-booster vaccine seronegativity.

Age at onset in patients with bipolar I and II disorder: a comparison of large sample studies.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar Disorder (BD) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and factors contributing to its burden include chronic relapsing course, comorbidity, suicide risk, and early age at onset (AAO). In particular, recent investigation has shown that BD onset may occur earlier than previously believed, even though whether BDI and II are different in such regard is still debated. Reduced samples may, moreover, limit the confidence in the published studies, with geographic issues, in turn, representing potentially conditioning factors. The present review was aimed to select and analyze large sample studies comparing AAO in BDI vs II patients. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was performed, considering English-written articles published up to December 2015, comparing AAO in BDI vs II patients with sample size≥100 subjects per group. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were considered suitable for revision, with 8 studies reporting statistically significant differences and 9 not. Among studies reporting statistically significant differences, mostly conducted in Europe, 6 showed an earlier AAO in BDI, while 2 in BDII subjects. LIMITATIONS: Only studies with large samples included, considering AAO as a continuous variable, and providing a comparison between the bipolar subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that AAO per se does not seem to reliably differentiate BDI from BDII patients and that such variable should likely be investigated in the context of other clinical characteristics, in order to assess its overall influence over BD course. Geographic factors may, in turn, play a potential role with future investigation warranted to further explore this specific issue.

Use of asenapine as add-on therapy in the treatment of bipolar disorder: a comprehensive review and case series.

INTRODUCTION: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), conducted in schizophrenic and bipolar patients, have documented the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine as monotherapy both for short- and long-term treatment. However, evidence on its augmentative use is more limited and related to the manic/mixed phase of bipolar disorder (BD). AREAS COVERED: The present article reviews augmentative asenapine efficacy and safety/tolerability in the treatment of BD. It also includes some original cases of bipolar patients treated with add-on asenapine in the short- and long-term. EXPERT OPINION: To date, only a single RCT with manic/mixed patients with partial response to mood-stabilizer monotherapy supports the efficacy and safety/tolerability of augmentative asenapine to lithium/valproate, both in acute and long-term treatment. Additionally, two case reports confirm the overall effectiveness of augmentative asenapine to clozapine and valproate. Our case series, consisting of 4 bipolar patients treated with adjunctive asenapine to mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics - with treatment duration ranging from 1 to 14 months - provided clinical results that are consistent with literature data. Taken as a whole, available evidence seems to support the efficacy and safety of adjunctive asenapine in bipolar patients, though additional studies with active comparators are requested to confirm the current body of evidence.