Anne Adams

Ms. Anne Adams

University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2016 in Journal of Thoracic Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SMSebastian Michels
Sebastian Michels
ASAndreas Hans Scheel
Andreas Hans Scheel
MSMatthias Scheffler
Matthias Scheffler
ASAnne Maria Schultheis
Anne Maria Schultheis
OGOliver Gautschi
Oliver Gautschi
JWJürgen Wolf
Jürgen Wolf

16 November 2021 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
VPVanessa Piechotta
Vanessa Piechotta
AAAnne Adams
Anne Adams
MHMadhuri Haque
Madhuri Haque
BSBenjamin Scheckel
Benjamin Scheckel
NKNina Kreuzberger
Nina Kreuzberger
NSNicole Skoetz
Nicole Skoetz

15 October 2020 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NWNora Würdemann
Nora Würdemann
Rishabh JainRishabh Jain
Rishabh Jain
AAAnne Adams
Anne Adams
ESErnst Jan Maria Speel
Ernst Jan Maria Speel
SWSteffen Wagner
Steffen Wagner
Jens Peter KlussmannJens Peter Klussmann
Jens Peter Klussmann
Global incidences of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) are rising due to an association with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV). Although there is an improved overall survival of HPV-related OPSCC; up to 25% of the patients develop recurrent or distant metastatic disease with a fatal outcomes. Biomarkers to monitor this disease are not established. This meta-analysis reviews the role of cell-free HPV DNA in liquid biopsy (LB) as a biomarker for HPV-related OPSCC. Pubmed, Livivo, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to August, 2020. All studies were analyzed by Meta-DiSc 1.4 and Stata 16.0 statistical software. In total, 16 studies were considered for systematic review, whereas 11 studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, respectively. Pooled sensitivity of cfHPV-DNA at first diagnosis and during follow-up was 0.81 (95% CI; 0.78–0.84) and 0.73 (95% CI; 0.57–0.86), while pooled specificity was 0.98 (95% CI; 0.96–0.99) and 1 (95% CI; 0.99–1). The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) at first diagnosis was 200.60 (95% CI; 93.31–431.22) and 300.31 (95% CI; 60.94–1479.88) during follow-up. The area under the curve (AUC) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.99 at first diagnosis and 1.00 during follow-up, respectively. In conclusion, cfHPV-DNA presents a potential biomarker with high specificity in patients with HPV-related OPSCC.

31 May 2022 in Blood Cancer Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VPVanessa Piechotta
Vanessa Piechotta
SMSibylle Mellinghoff
Sibylle Mellinghoff
CHCaroline Hirsch
Caroline Hirsch
ABAlice Brinkmann
Alice Brinkmann
CIClaire Iannizzi
Claire Iannizzi
NSNicole Skoetz
Nicole Skoetz
The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) appears limited due to disease and treatment-associated immune impairment. We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies published from 10/12/2021 onwards in medical databases to assess clinical efficacy parameters, humoral and cellular immunogenicity and adverse events (AE) following two doses of COVID-19 approved vaccines. In 57 eligible studies reporting 7393 patients, clinical outcomes were rarely reported and rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 0–11.9%), symptomatic disease (0–2.7%), hospital admission (0–2.8%), or death (0–0.5%) were low. Seroconversion rates ranged from 38.1–99.1% across studies with the highest response rate in myeloproliferative diseases and the lowest in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients with B-cell depleting treatment had lower seroconversion rates as compared to other targeted treatments or chemotherapy. The vaccine-induced T-cell response was rarely and heterogeneously reported (26.5–85.9%). Similarly, AEs were rarely reported (0–50.9% ≥1 AE, 0–7.5% ≥1 serious AE). In conclusion, HM patients present impaired humoral and cellular immune response to COVID-19 vaccination with disease and treatment specific response patterns. In light of the ongoing pandemic with the easing of mitigation strategies, new approaches to avert severe infection are urgently needed for this vulnerable patient population that responds poorly to current COVID-19 vaccine regimens.

3 December 2020 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
TJTina Jakob
Tina Jakob
YTYonas Mehari Tesfamariam
Yonas Mehari Tesfamariam
SMSascha Macherey
Sascha Macherey
KKKathrin Kuhr
Kathrin Kuhr
AAAnne Adams
Anne Adams
NSNicole Skoetz
Nicole Skoetz

24 September 2020 in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CBCora Braun
Cora Braun
AAAnne Adams
Anne Adams
LRLena Rink
Lena Rink
TBTom Bschor
Tom Bschor
KKKathrin Kuhr
Kathrin Kuhr
CBChristopher Baethge
Christopher Baethge
Objective: Recent meta‐analyses on dose–response relationships of SSRIs are largely based on indirect evidence. We analyzed RCTs directly comparing different SSRI doses.Method: Systematic literature search for RCTs. Two raters independently screened articles and extracted data. Across SSRIs, doses defined as low, medium, and high doses, based on drug manufacturers’ product monographs, were analyzed in pairwise random‐effects meta‐analyses and in a sensitivity network meta‐analysis with regard to differences in antidepressive efficacy (primary outcome). We also analyzed all direct comparisons of different dosages of specific SSRIs. (Prospero CRD42018081031).Results: Out of 5333 articles screened, we included 33. Comparisons of dosage groups (low, medium, and high) resulted in only small and clinically non‐significant differences for SSRIs as a group, the strongest relating to medium vs low doses (SMD: −0.15 [95%‐CI: −0.28; −0.01) and not sustained in a sensitivity analysis. Among different doses of specific SSRIs, no statistically significant trend emerged for efficacy at higher doses, but 60 mg/day fluoxetine are statistically significantly inferior to 20 mg/day. Paroxetine results are inconclusive: 10 mg/day are inferior to higher doses, but 30 and 40 mg/day are inferior to 20 mg/day. Meaningful effects cannot be ruled out for certain drugs and dosages, often investigated in only one trial. Dropout rates increase with dose—particularly due to side effects. Network meta‐analyses supported our findings.Conclusions: There is no conclusive level I or level II evidence of a clinically meaningful dose–response relationship of SSRIs as a group or of single substances. High SSRI doses are not recommended as routine treatment.