Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies: (how) effective and safe?

We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data. For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities). We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.

Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in the treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The current article is a systematic review concerning the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in the treatment of bipolar disorder. METHODS: A systematic Medline and repositories search concerning the usefulness of aripiprazole in bipolar disorder was performed, with the combination of the words 'aripiprazole' and 'bipolar'. RESULTS: The search returned 184 articles and was last updated on 15 April 2009. An additional search included repositories of clinical trials and previous systematic reviews specifically in order to trace unpublished trials. There were seven placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs), six with comparator studies and one with add-on studies. They assessed the usefulness of aripiprazole in acute mania, acute bipolar depression and during the maintenance phase in comparison to placebo, lithium or haloperidol. CONCLUSION: Aripiprazole appears effective for the treatment and prophylaxis against mania. The data on bipolar depression are so far negative, however there is a need for further study at lower dosages. The most frequent adverse effects are extrapyramidal signs and symptoms, especially akathisia, without any significant weight gain, hyperprolactinaemia or laboratory test changes.

Effectiveness of a drug dosing service provided by community pharmacists in polymedicated elderly patients with renal impairment a comparative study

Background: Drug dosing errors are common in renal-impaired patients. Appropriate dosing adjustment and drug selection is important to ensure patients" safety and to avoid adverse drug effects and poor outcomes. There are few studies on this issue in community pharmacies. The aims of this study were, firstly, to determine the prevalence of dosing inadequacy as a consequence of renal impairment in patients over 65 taking 3 or more drug products who were being attended in community pharmacies and, secondly, to evaluate the effectiveness of the community pharmacist"s intervention in improving dosing inadequacy in these patients when compared with usual care. Methods: The study was carried out in 40 Spanish community pharmacies. The study had two phases: the first, with an observational, multicentre, cross sectional design, served to determine the dosing inadequacy, the drug-related problems per patient and to obtain the control group. The second phase, with a controlled study with historical control group, was the intervention phase. When dosing adjustments were needed, the pharmacists made recommendations to the physicians. A comparison was made between the control and the intervention group regarding the prevalence of drug dosing inadequacy and the mean number of drug-related problems per patient. Results: The mean of the prevalence of drug dosing inadequacy was 17.5% [95% CI 14.6-21.5] in phase 1 and 15.5% [95% CI 14.5-16.6] in phase 2. The mean number of drug-related problems per patient was 0.7 [95% CI 0.5-0.8] in phase 1 and 0.50 [95% CI 0.4-0.6] in phase 2. The difference in the prevalence of dosing inadequacy between the control and intervention group before the pharmacists" intervention was 0.73% [95% CI (−6.0) - 7.5] and after the pharmacists" intervention it was 13.5% [95% CI 8.0 - 19.5] (p < 0.001) while the difference in the mean of drug-related problems per patient before the pharmacists" intervention was 0.05 [95% CI( -0.2) - 0.3] and following the intervention it was 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 - 0.7] (p < 0.001). Conclusion: A drug dosing adjustment service for elderly patients with renal impairment in community pharmacies can increase the proportion of adequate drug dosing, and improve the drug-related problems per patient. Collaborative practice with physicians can improve these results.