Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting by COVID-19 Vaccinated Healthcare Professionals Through an Electronic Form Implemented by the Hospital Pharmacy.

Aim: Implementation of a web-form based pharmacovigilance plan for the spontaneous notification of adverse events to the Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine during its administration to hospital healthcare professionals. Methods: An electronic pharmacovigilance form was developed containing 8 pre-defined event options, an open answer option for the description of other events and/or symptoms, and a question about the overall intensity of symptoms. The adverse events reports were standardized according to physiological and pathological condition. Results: A total of 4119 adverse events notifications were obtained with a 45% rate of electronic notification. The most clinically relevant events reported were:tachycardia (n = 19), dyspnea (n = 7), chest pain (n = 6), facial/labial edema (n = 6), lipothymia (n = 5), bronchospasm (n = 2), herpetic infection (n = 2), vasculitis (n = 2), arrhythmia (n = 1), difficult to control arterial hypertension (n = 1), gastritis (n = 1), and spontaneous abortion (n = 1). Regarding the intensity of symptoms (n = 2928), 70.0% were reported as mild, 25.8% as moderate, and 4.27% as severe, with higher intensity in the second dose compared to first dose. The highest frequency of severe events were reported in the groups from 40 to 59 years in both vaccination periods. During the vaccination process, no hospitalizations and no deaths were notified and/or recorded. Conclusion: In this real world study, comparing with Comirnaty clinical trials program, it was observed a higher frequency of adenomegaly and gastrointestinal disorders. Noteworthy, the notification of a case of miscarriage. The use of hospital pharmacy pharmacovigilance electronic forms, seemed to be relevant to notification adherence and to obtain a greater and faster knowledge of COVID-19 vaccine safety profile.

Cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a comparative effectiveness study.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding comparative effectiveness of cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a retrospective head-to-head multi-cohort study comparing clinical outcomes from both antibodies METHODS: Cohorts were defined by treatment line and subgroups by (K)RAS status and tumour sidedness. Among other outcomes, we estimated and compared response rates, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between January 2010 and April 2018, 311 patients were included. Except for (K)RAS mutation status, baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. In the full analysis of first and second-line cohorts, PFS (first-line: HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.13; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.83; P = 0.51) and OS (first-line: HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; P = 0.58) were similar between bevacizumab and cetuximab arms. In subgroup analyses of first-line therapy, we found a survival difference favouring bevacizumab in right-sided tumours (PFS: HR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; P = 0.025; OS: HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12; P = 0.11), but not in left-sided (HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.46; P = 0.81; OS: HR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.36; P = 0.74), or (K)RAS wild-type tumours (PFS: HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40; P = 0.67; OS: HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25; P = 0.31). Response rates were similar across treatment groups, except for the subgroup of patients bearing right-sided primaries, where bevacizumab performed substantially better. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence suggesting bevacizumab and cetuximab lead to similar effectiveness outcomes in mCRC, except for right-sided tumours, where cetuximab seemed to show considerably poorer outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these results.

Patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life for cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab. We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing PROs and HRQoL from both therapies. METHODS: We assessed PROs and HRQoL from patients treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires at three sequential time points, including baseline. Global Health Status (GHS), functional and symptom scales, and Overall Treatment Utility (derived from clinical and patient-reported outcomes) were compared for the two treatment strategies. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and April 2018, 44 patients were allocated to cetuximab (n = 19) or bevacizumab (n = 25). Except for RAS mutation status, patient baseline characteristics were generally well balanced across treatment groups. A higher proportion of patients experienced a deterioration in GHS (≥ 10%) in cetuximab arm - 53.8% (95% CI 25.1-80.8%) at 6 weeks and 66.7% (95% CI 29.9-92.5%) at 12 weeks-comparing to bevacizumab cohort: 18.2% (95% CI 5.2-40.3%) at 6 weeks and 12.5% (95% CI:1.6-38.3%) at 12 weeks. Treatment utility rates at 6 and 12 weeks were, respectively, 88.6% and 69.8% for bevacizumab, compared to 49% and 19.1% for cetuximab (p = 0.004), a difference confirmed in subset analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mCRC, cetuximab-containing regimens led to a progressive negative impact on PROs and global HRQoL, when compared to baseline and bevacizumab. Future research is needed to confirm these results. Our findings demonstrate the value of PROs when assessing comparative effectiveness of different treatment regimens.

Triplet (FOLFOXIRI) versus doublet (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) backbone chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Uncertainty exists regarding the comparative effectiveness of triplet chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) as backbone first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triplet versus doublet chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy in mCRC. Methods and reporting followed PRISMA and SAMPL guidelines. Eight RCTs were included, comprising 1732 patients. In pooled analysis, FOLFOXIRI was associated with improvements in efficacy outcomes, notably with a 25% survival increase (95%CI: 10-37%). FOLFOXIRI was also associated with increased toxicity, with a non-significant 25% increase in the risk of patients experiencing grade ≥3 adverse events (95% CI: -3 to 61%) and with a 1.83 (95% CI: 1.62-2.07) increase in the rate ratio of grade ≥3 adverse events. Moderate quality evidence suggests that first-line FOLFOXIRI provides clinically meaningful efficacy benefits in this setting, at the expense of increased toxicity. Further research is warranted to better characterize safety and to evaluate the most beneficial combination with targeted agents.