Search

Introduction: The rapid expansion of the Internet and computing power in recent years has opened up the possibility of using social media for pharmacovigilance. While this general concept has been proposed by many, central questions remain as to whether social media can provide earlier warnings for rare and serious events than traditional signal detection from spontaneous report data.Objective: Our objective was to examine whether specific product-adverse event pairs were reported via social media before being reported to the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).Methods: A retrospective analysis of public Facebook and Twitter data was conducted for 10 recent FDA postmarketing safety signals at the drug-event pair level with six negative controls. Social media data corresponding to two years prior to signal detection of each product-event pair were compiled. Automated classifiers were used to identify each 'post with resemblance to an adverse event' (Proto-AE), among English language posts. A custom dictionary was used to translate Internet vernacular into Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) Preferred Terms. Drug safety physicians conducted a manual review to determine causality using World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) assessment criteria. Cases were also compared with those reported in FAERS.Findings: A total of 935,246 posts were harvested from Facebook and Twitter, from March 2009 through October 2014. The automated classifier identified 98,252 Proto-AEs. Of these, 13 posts were selected for causality assessment of product-event pairs. Clinical assessment revealed that posts had sufficient information to warrant further investigation for two possible product-event associations: dronedarone-vasculitis and Banana Boat Sunscreen--skin burns. No product-event associations were found among the negative controls. In one of the positive cases, the first report occurred in social media prior to signal detection from FAERS, whereas the other case occurred first in FAERS.Conclusions: An efficient semi-automated approach to social media monitoring may provide earlier insights into certain adverse events. More work is needed to elaborate additional uses for social media data in pharmacovigilance and to determine how they can be applied by regulatory agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A number of safety signals-complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)-have emerged with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, which share a similar pattern of symptomatology. Previous signal evaluations and epidemiological studies have largely relied on traditional methodologies and signals have been considered individually.Objective: The aim of this study was to explore global reporting patterns for HPV vaccine for subgroups of reports with similar adverse event (AE) profiles.Methods: All individual case safety reports (reports) for HPV vaccines in VigiBase® until 1 January 2015 were identified. A statistical cluster analysis algorithm was used to identify natural groupings based on AE profiles in a data-driven exploratory analysis. Clinical assessment of the clusters was performed to identify clusters relevant to current safety concerns.Results: Overall, 54 clusters containing at least five reports were identified. The four largest clusters included 71 % of the analysed HPV reports and described AEs included in the product label. Four smaller clusters were identified to include case reports relevant to ongoing safety concerns (total of 694 cases). In all four of these clusters, the most commonly reported AE terms were headache and dizziness and fatigue or syncope; three of these four AE terms were reported in >50 % of the reports included in the clusters. These clusters had a higher proportion of serious cases compared with HPV reports overall (44-89 % in the clusters compared with 24 %). Furthermore, only a minority of reports included in these clusters included AE terms of diagnoses to explain these symptoms. Using proportional reporting ratios, the combination of headache and dizziness with either fatigue or syncope was found to be more commonly reported in HPV vaccine reports compared with non-HPV vaccine reports for females aged 9-25 years. This disproportionality remained when results were stratified by age and when those countries reporting the signals of CRPS (Japan) and POTS (Denmark) were excluded.Conclusions: Cluster analysis reveals additional reports of AEs following HPV vaccination that are serious in nature and describe symptoms that overlap those reported in cases from the recent safety signals (POTS, CRPS, and CFS), but which do not report explicit diagnoses. While the causal association between HPV vaccination and these AEs remains uncertain, more extensive analyses of spontaneous reports can better identify the relevant case series for thorough signal evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of patients as key contributors in pharmacovigilance was acknowledged in the new EU pharmacovigilance legislation. This contains several efforts to increase the involvement of the general public, including making patient adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting systems mandatory. Three years have passed since the legislation was introduced and the key question is: does pharmacovigilance yet make optimal use of patient-reported safety information? Independent research has shown beyond doubt that patients make an important contribution to pharmacovigilance signal detection. Patient reports provide first-hand information about the suspected ADR and the circumstances under which it occurred, including medication errors, quality failures, and 'near misses'. Patient-reported safety information leads to a better understanding of the patient's experiences of the ADR. Patients are better at explaining the nature, personal significance and consequences of ADRs than healthcare professionals' reports on similar associations and they give more detailed information regarding quality of life including psychological effects and effects on everyday tasks. Current methods used in pharmacovigilance need to optimise use of the information reported from patients. To make the most of information from patients, the systems we use for collecting, coding and recording patient-reported information and the methodologies applied for signal detection and assessment need to be further developed, such as a patient-specific form, development of a severity grading and evolution of the database structure and the signal detection methods applied. It is time for a renaissance of pharmacovigilance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world changes continuously and pharmacovigilance as a new discipline also must change. There are new fields opening with novel challenges whilst we are still perfecting ways to manage and improve the basic challenges such as inadequate data for decision making and under-reporting. Traditional medicines, vaccines, poisoning and medication error are all aspects of the safety of medicines that we have monitored for decades, though without perhaps paying enough attention to their special aspects. There are many new stakeholders taking serious interest in pharmacovigilance outside the regulatory sphere and they often focus on improving individual patient care, rather than the more traditional concentration on broad public health. The same stakeholders are also drawing attention to other iatrogenic outcomes that should be recognised, evaluated and their outcomes compared and contrasted with medication, such as harm from medical devices. The vigilance methods used for medication are very much applicable to all these new fields, though more and different expertise will be needed to evaluate outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the personal views of the author about diagnosis and management of an adverse drug effect. It proposes that diagnosis is complicated and is also supported by carefully observed management of changes in drug therapy. Drug-related adverse effects may be due to the drug itself, though many are due to systematic errors occurring in the process from diagnosis of the primary treated condition, through prescribing and dispensing, to the way the drug is used by the patient. Bringing awareness of such systematic errors for consideration and management is part of a health care professional's responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Child age-specific information on efficacy and risk of medicines can be limited for healthcare professionals and patients. It is therefore very important to make the best use of a risk planned approach to the pharmacological treatment of children. This means pharmacovigilance in the broadest sense of gaining the best data from the use of medicines in clinical practice. We consider issues that complicate safe medication use in paediatric care, as well as current progress and provide suggestions for building knowledge within paediatric pharmacovigilance to be used to minimise patient harm. The continuous development in children constitutes a challenge to prescribing and administering age-suitable doses for individual children. Children are not only different from adults but differ vastly within their own age group. Physical growth during childhood is apparent to the eye, but less obvious is the ongoing maturation of organ function important for drug disposition and action. Systematic issues such as medication errors, off-label use and the lack of age-suitable formulations are considerable obstacles for safe medication use in paediatrics. The recognition of emerging adverse drug reactions could be more challenging in developing children. Initiatives to improve the situation have been made by the WHO and regulators in the USA and EU. Age-specific changes in physiology, pharmacology and psychology, as well as systematic issues specific for children need to be considered in the work of assessing spontaneous reports in children. Pharmacovigilance needs to broaden its aims considerably beyond merely capturing new associations between drugs and events, and encompass careful collection on patient characteristics and circumstances around the reported adverse drug reaction to provide essential information that will give clues on how to prevent harm to children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Safety Event Reporting (PROSPER) Consortium was convened to improve safety reporting by better incorporating the perspective of the patient. PROSPER comprises industry, regulatory authority, academic, private sector and patient representatives who are interested in the area of patient-reported outcomes of adverse events (PRO-AEs). It has developed guidance on PRO-AE data, including the benefits of wider use and approaches for data capture and analysis. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) encompass the full range of self-reporting, rather than only patient reports collected by clinicians using validated instruments. In recent years, PROs have become increasingly important across the spectrum of healthcare and life sciences. Patient-centred models of care are integrating shared decision making and PROs at the point of care; comparative effectiveness research seeks to include patients as participatory stakeholders; and industry is expanding its involvement with patients and patient groups as part of the drug development process and safety monitoring. Additionally, recent pharmacovigilance legislation from regulatory authorities in the EU and the USA calls for the inclusion of patient-reported information in benefit-risk assessment of pharmaceutical products. For patients, technological advancements have made it easier to be an active participant in one's healthcare. Simplified internet search capabilities, electronic and personal health records, digital mobile devices, and PRO-enabled patient online communities are just a few examples of tools that allow patients to gain increased knowledge about conditions, symptoms, treatment options and side effects. Despite these changes and increased attention on the perceived value of PROs, their full potential has yet to be realised in pharmacovigilance. Current safety reporting and risk assessment processes remain heavily dependent on healthcare professionals, though there are known limitations such as under-reporting and discordant perspectives between patient reports and clinician perceptions of adverse outcomes. PROSPER seeks to support the wider use of PRO-AEs. The scope of this guidance document, which was completed between July 2011 and March 2013, considered a host of domains related to PRO-AEs, including definitions and suitable taxonomies, the range of datasets that could be used, data collection mechanisms, and suitable analytical methodologies. PROSPER offers an innovative framework to differentiate patient populations. This framework considers populations that are prespecified (such as those in clinical trials, prospective observational studies and some registries) and non-prespecified populations (such as those in claims databases, PRO-enabled online patient networks, and social websites in general). While the main focus of this guidance is on post-approval PRO-AEs from both prespecified and non-prespecified population groups, PROSPER has also considered pre-approval, prespecified populations. The ultimate aim of this guidance is to ensure that the patient 'voice' and perspective feed appropriately into collection of safety data. The guidance also covers a minimum core dataset for use by industry or regulators to structure PRO-AEs (accessible in the online appendix) and how data, once collected, might be evaluated to better inform on the safe and effective use of medicinal products. Structured collection of such patient data can be considered both a means to an end (improving patient safety) as well as an end in itself (expressing the patient viewpoint). The members of the PROSPER Consortium therefore direct this PRO-AE guidance to multiple stakeholders in drug safety, including industry, regulators, prescribers and patients. The use of this document across the entirety of the drug development life cycle will help to better define the benefit-risk profile of new and existing medicines. Because of the clinical relevance of 'real-world' data, PROs have the potential to contribute important new knowledge about the benefits and risks of medicinal products, communicated through the voice of the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on decision dilemmas in pharmacovigilance. He explores the significant role of the lack of resources in making decisions in pharmacovigilance, discussing the existence of two questions associated to drug safety and efficacy evaluation. He suggests on the importance of the readiness to share information in a general and specific matter in pharmacovigilance.

Background: As a first step towards implementing routine screening of safety issues specifically related to children at the Uppsala Monitoring Centre, this study was performed to explore reporting patterns of adverse reactions in children.Objective: The first aim of this study was to characterize and contrast child reports against adult reports in an overall drug and adverse reaction review. The second aim was to highlight increases in reporting of specific adverse reactions during recent years subdivided by age group.Study Design: This was an exploratory study of internationally compiled individual case safety reports (ICSRs).Setting: Reports were extracted from the WHO global ICSR database, VigiBase, up until 5 February 2010. The reports in VigiBase originate from 97 countries and the likelihood that a medicine caused the adverse effect may vary from case to case. Suspected duplicate and vaccine reports were excluded from the analysis, as were reports with age not specified. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) and the WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification were used to group adverse reactions and drugs.Patients: In the general review, reports from 1968 to 5 February 2010 were divided into child (aged 0-17 years) and adult (≥ 18 years) age groups. To highlight increases in reporting rates of specific adverse reactions during recent years, reports from 2005 to February 2010 were compared with reports from 1995 to 1999. The ten adverse reactions with the greatest difference in the proportion of reports between the two time periods were reviewed. In the latter analysis, the reports were subdivided into age groups: neonates ≤ 27 days; infants 28 days-23 months; children 2-11 years; and adolescents 12-17 years.Results: A total of 3,472,183 reports were included in the study, of which 7.7% (268,145) were reports for children (0-17 years). Fifty-three percent of the child reports were for males, whilst 39% of reports in the adult group were for males. The proportion of reports involving children among Asian reports was 14% and was 15% among reports from Africa and Latin America, including the Caribbean. Among reports from North America, Oceania and Europe, 7% of the reports involved children. For the ATC drug classification groups, the largest difference in percentage units between the child and adult groups was seen for the anti-infective (33 vs 15%), respiratory (11 vs 5%) and dermatological (12 vs 7%) drug groups. Skin reactions were most commonly reported for the children; these were recorded in 35% of all reports for children and 23% of all reports for adults. Medication error-related terms in the younger age groups were reported with an increased frequency during recent years. This was particularly noticeable for the infants aged 28 days-23 months, recorded with accidental overdose and drug toxicity. Reactions reported in suspected connection to medicines used for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) completely dominated the 2- to 11-year age group and were also common for the adolescents. This study presents variations in the reporting pattern in different age groups in VigiBase which, in some cases, could be due to susceptibilities to specific drug-related problems in certain age groups. Other likely explanations might be common drug usage and childhood diseases in these age groups.Conclusions: Reports in VigiBase received internationally for more than 40 years reflect real concerns for children taking medicines. The study highlights adverse reactions with an increased reporting during recent years, particularly those connected to the introduction of ADHD medicines in the child population. To enhance patient safety, medication errors indicating administration and dosing difficulties of drugs, especially in the younger age groups, require further attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: NSAIDs, particularly ibuprofen, are commonly prescribed for children but there is limited published research on real-life prescribed doses for this class of drugs.Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate if variations in NSAID doses prescribed to children can be explained by patient age, indication, dosage form, type of NSAID or year of prescription.Study Design: Recorded daily doses for drugs within the 'Anti-rheumatics, non-steroidal plain' anatomical classification were studied. First prescriptions of a distinct NSAID substance within 13-month time periods in a patient's history were included. To enable grouping and comparison of NSAIDs, doses were analysed as prescribed daily doses (PDDs) relative to the adult defined daily dose, stated as the relative PDD (rPDD) in this study. Multiple regression analysis was performed with the rPDD as the response variable, and age, indication, dosage form, NSAID substance and year of prescription as the explanatory variables.Setting: Prescriptions from the Intercontinental Medical Statistics (IMS) Health Disease Analyzer database containing electronic health records of general practitioners in the UK issued from 1988 to December 2005.Patients: Data for children aged 2-11 years with NSAID prescriptions including daily dose information.Results: A total of 21 473 first prescriptions for 19 695 patients were studied. The vast majority of prescriptions were for ibuprofen (n = 20 855), which were therefore analysed separately. The other NSAID prescriptions were grouped (n = 618), containing diclofenac, indometacin, mefenamic acid, naproxen and piroxicam ('NSAID group'). The rPDD varied considerably with dosage form in both the ibuprofen and NSAID groups. In particular, tablets/capsules were prescribed at higher doses than liquid dosage forms. In the NSAID group, naproxen was prescribed at noticeably higher doses. The rPDD varied only slightly with age in both groups. Prescriptions indicated for rheumatic disease were associated with lower doses than other indications in the NSAID group. The rPDD was not influenced by year of prescription.Conclusions: This study shows a correlation between higher prescribed NSAID doses and tablet/capsule formulation, and highlights the need for careful choice of dose formulation when prescribing medicines for children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse drug interaction surveillance in collections of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) remains underdeveloped. Most efforts to date have focused on disproportionality analysis, but the empirical support for its value is based on isolated examples. Additionally, too little attention has been given to the potential value of the detailed content of ICSRs for improved adverse drug interaction surveillance.Objective: The aim of the study was to identify reporting patterns indicative of suspected adverse drug interactions before the drug interactions are generally established.Methods: A reference set of known adverse drug interactions and drug pairs not known to interact was constructed from information added to Stockley's Drug Interactions Alerts between the first quarter of 2007 and the third quarter of 2009. The reference set was used to systematically study differences in reporting patterns between adverse drug interactions before they are generally established and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to drug pairs that are not known to interact, in the WHO Global ICSR Database, VigiBase. The scope of the study included pharmacological properties such as common cytochrome P450 metabolism, explicit suspicions of drug interactions as noted by the reporter, clinical details such as dose and treatment overlap, and the lower limit of the 95% credibility interval of a three-way measure of disproportionality, Omega(025) (Ω(025)), based on the total number of reports on two drugs and one ADR together. Analyses were carried out including and excluding concomitant medicines.Results: Five reporting patterns were highlighted as particularly strong indicators of adverse drug interactions before they are known: suspicion of interactions as noted by the reporter in a case narrative, the assignment of the two drugs as interacting or through an ADR term; co-reporting of effect increased with the drug pair; and, finally, an excess total number of reports on the ADR together with the two drugs, as measured by Ω(025). Overall, the inclusion of concomitant medicines led to a larger number of true adverse drug interactions being highlighted, but at a substantial decrease in the strength of most indicators. Notably, the inclusion of concomitant medicines completely eliminated the value of Ω(025) as an indicator of adverse drug interactions, in this systematic evaluation.Conclusions: Reported suspicion of interactions as noted by the reporter in a case narrative, the assignment of the two drugs as interacting or through an ADR term; co-reporting of effect increased with the drug pair and by the Ω(025) each provide unique information to highlight adverse drug interactions before they become known in the literature. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic analysis demonstrating the value of disproportionality analysis for adverse drug interactions using a comprehensive reference set, and the first study to consider a broader basis including clinical information for systematic drug interaction surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large collections of electronic patient records provide a vast but still underutilised source of information on the real world use of medicines. They are maintained primarily for the purpose of patient administration, but contain a broad range of clinical information highly relevant for data analysis. While they are a standard resource for epidemiological confirmatory studies, their use in the context of exploratory data analysis is still limited. In this paper, we present a framework for open-ended pattern discovery in large patient records repositories. At the core is a graphical statistical approach to summarising and visualising the temporal association between the prescription of a drug and the occurrence of a medical event. The graphical overview contrasts the observed and expected number of occurrences of the medical event in different time periods both before and after the prescription of interest. In order to effectively screen for important temporal relationships, we introduce a new measure of temporal association, which contrasts the observed-to-expected ratio in a time period immediately after the prescription to the observed-to-expected ratio in a control period 2 years earlier. An important feature of both the observed-to-expected graph and the measure of temporal association is a statistical shrinkage towards the null hypothesis of no association, which provides protection against highlighting spurious associations. We demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed pattern discovery methodology by a set of examples from a collection of over two million patient records in the United Kingdom. The identified patterns include temporal relationships between drug prescriptions and medical events suggestive of persistent and transient risks of adverse events, possible beneficial effects of drugs, periodic co-occurrence, and systematic tendencies of patients to switch from one medication to another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Automated screening for excessive adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting rates has proven useful as a tool to direct clinical review in large-scale drug safety signal detection. Some measures of disproportionality can be adjusted to eliminate any undue influence on the ADR reporting rate of covariates, such as patient age or country of origin, by using a weighted average of stratum-specific measures of disproportionality. Arguments have been made in favour of routine adjustment for a set of common potential confounders using stratification. The aim of this paper is to investigate the impact of using adjusted observed-to-expected ratios, as implemented for the Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) and the information component (IC) measures of disproportionality, for first-pass analysis of the WHO database.Methods: A simulation study was carried out to investigate the impact of simultaneous adjustment for several potential confounders based on stratification. Comparison between crude and adjusted observed-to-expected ratios were made based on random allocation of reports to a set of strata with a realistic distribution of stratum sizes. In a separate study, differences between the crude IC value and IC values adjusted for (combinations of) patient sex, age group, reporting quarter and country of origin, with respect to their concordance with a literature comparison were analysed. Comparison was made to the impact on signal detection performance of a triage criterion requiring reports from at least two countries before a drug-ADR pair was highlighted for clinical review.Results: The simulation study demonstrated a clear tendency of the adjusted observed-to-expected ratio to spurious (and considerable) underestimation relative to the crude one, in the presence of any very small strata in a stratified database. With carefully implemented stratification that did not yield any very small strata, this tendency could be avoided. Routine adjustment for potential confounders improved signal detection performance relative to the literature comparison, but the magnitude of the improvement was modest. The improvement from the triage criterion was more considerable.Discussion and Conclusions: Our results indicate that first-pass screening based on observed-to-expected ratios adjusted with stratification may lead to missed signals in ADR surveillance, unless very small strata are avoided. In addition, the improvement in signal detection performance due to routine adjustment for a set of common confounders appears to be smaller than previously assumed. Other approaches to improving signal detection performance such as the development of refined triage criteria may be more promising areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's views on the future of pharmacovigilance. It is stated that the drug safety has been considered as an epidemiological or public health exercise. The author opined that most of the adverse reactions to drugs are comparatively uncommon and they more usually result from individual patient idiosyncracy or from the way in which the drug is used.

The WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring in Uppsala, Sweden, maintains and analyses the world's largest database of reports on suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) incidents that occur after drugs are on the market. The presence of duplicate case reports is an important data quality problem and their detection remains a formidable challenge, especially in the WHO drug safety database where reports are anonymised before submission. In this paper, we propose a duplicate detection method based on the hit-miss model for statistical record linkage described by Copas and Hilton, which handles the limited amount of training data well and is well suited for the available data (categorical and numerical rather than free text). We propose two extensions of the standard hit-miss model: a hit-miss mixture model for errors in numerical record fields and a new method to handle correlated record fields, and we demonstrate the effectiveness both at identifying the most likely duplicate for a given case report (94.7% accuracy) and at discriminating true duplicates from random matches (63% recall with 71% precision). The proposed method allows for more efficient data cleaning in post-marketing drug safety data sets, and perhaps other knowledge discovery applications as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The WHO Foundation Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring (Uppsala Monitoring Centre [UMC]) has received many individual case safety reports (ICSRs) associating HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor drug (statin) use with the occurrence of muscle damage, including rhabdomyolysis, and also peripheral neuropathy. A new signal has now appeared of disproportionally high reporting of upper motor neurone lesions.Aim and Scope: The aim of this paper is to present the upper motor neurone lesion cases, with other evidence, as a signal of a relationship between statins and an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)-like syndrome. The paper also presents some arguments for considering that a spectrum of severe neuromuscular damage may be associated with statin use, albeit rarely. The paper does not do more than raise the signal for further work and analysis of what must be regarded as a potentially very serious and perhaps avoidable or reversible adverse reaction, though it also suggests action to be taken if an ALS-like syndrome should occur in a patient using statins.Methods: The 43 reports accounting for the disproportional reports in Vigibase (the database of the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring) are summarised and analysed for the diagnosis of an ALS-like syndrome. The issues of data quality and potential reporting bias are considered.Results: 'Upper motor neurone lesion' is a rare adverse event reported in relationship to drugs in Vigibase (a database containing nearly 4 million ICSRs). Of the total of 172 ICSRs on this reported term, 43 were related to statins, of which 40 were considered further: all but one case was reported as ALS. In 34/40 reports a statin was the sole reported suspected drug. The diagnostic criteria were variable, and seven of the statin cases also had features of peripheral neuropathy. Of a total of 5534 ICSRs of peripheral neuropathy related to any drug in Vigibase, 547 were on statins. The disproportional reporting of statins and upper motor neurone lesion persisted after age stratification, and such disproportionality was not seen for statins and Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, extrapyramidal disorders, or multiple sclerosis-like syndromes.Discussion: Because the cases were sometimes atypical we propose the use of the term 'ALS-like syndrome' and speculate whether this is part of a spectrum of rare neuromuscular damage. The diagnosis of ALS is often problematic, and the insidiousness and chronicity of the disease make causality with a drug difficult to assess. The disproportionally high reporting makes this an important signal nevertheless, since ALS is serious clinically and statins are so widely used. Wide use of the statins also makes a chance finding more probable, but is unlikely to cause disproportional reporting when there are no obvious biases identified.Conclusion: We emphasise the rarity of this possible association, and also the need for further study to establish whether a causal relationship exists. We do advocate that trial discontinuation of a statin should be considered in patients with serious neuromuscular disease such as the ALS-like syndrome, given the poor prognosis and a possibility that progression of the disease may be halted or even reversed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The expanded use of multiple antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy has led to a reduction in the occurrence of perinatal transmission of HIV to <2%, but has led to concerns regarding both short-term toxicity and the long-term impact on the woman and her child. Enhanced toxicity of nevirapine has been noted among women with CD4+ lymphocyte counts >250 cells/μL at treatment initiation and among pregnant women on long-term didanosine and stavudine. These drugs should be avoided in such situations if alternatives are available. Efavirenz has been associated with birth defects in monkeys, and several cases of neural tube defects have been reported in humans after first trimester exposure, so treatment with this drug should be avoided during the first trimester. Protease inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of maternal glucose intolerance, pre-eclampsia and preterm birth in some, but not all, studies. Pregnancies exposed to antiretroviral therapy should be registered with the Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry as early in pregnancy as possible in order to provide data on the risk of birth defects after exposure.The pharmacokinetics of nucleoside and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are not significantly changed in pregnancy, so standard dosing may be used. However, concentrations of several protease inhibitors are lower in pregnancy, so ritonavir-boosting or increased doses are required. Of great theoretical concern is the impact of resistance mutations that develop following single-dose nevirapine therapy on the response to later therapy among women and their infected infants. The use of dual nucleoside therapy for 3–7 days after single-dose nevirapine in the mother reduces but does not eliminate the risk of nevirapine resistance; alternative regimens for prevention of resistance are under study, as are the subsequent responses of the mother and her infant to therapy. Short courses of prophylactic zidovudine and nevirapine have been well tolerated in neonates. Concern has been raised, however, that these exposures may lead to persistent mitochondrial dysfunction or later cancers, underscoring the need for long-term surveillance of antiretroviral-exposed, HIV-uninfected infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the side effects of rofecoxib. Pharmacovigilance and drug safety concerns; Signals of increased risk of cardiovascular disorders with the use of rofecoxib.

The WHO World Alliance on Patient Safety is a new, all encompassing project to improve medical care. Individual patients are the focus and all countries are encouraged to develop systems in which medical error, therapeutic accidents and failures are minimised. The potential for adverse events is present at all levels of healthcare and in all disciplines. One working group in the Alliance is charged with promoting and developing a 'reporting and learning' culture for adverse events in all areas of medical care. Central to current thinking for this group is a no-fault approach and to report near misses. The aim is not to provide certainty over the individual events, but rather to draw attention to possible improvements in systems that may prevent future problems. Adverse events relating to drug therapy have been reported for decades to national pharmacovigilance authorities, but this is aimed at finding problems with the drugs themselves as early as possible. The Alliance approach in the area of drug safety, by contrast, has a greater focus on safety in the systems of drug provision (including prescription and dispensing) and other systematic issues relating to safe drug provision, such as fraudulent drugs. Thus, current pharmacovigilance can be seen as representing a part of the reporting and learning envisaged by the Alliance. The two approaches are also complementary, but there are practical and philosophical areas of overlap in which difficulties may occur, such as anonymised reporting in a no-fault system and consequent impossibility for follow-up. In pharmacovigilance follow-up for more information is regarded as essential. Whether pharmacovigilance broadens into the area of patient safety or the latter involves completely new systems to do its work will be a matter for each country to consider. One thing is certain, working together both systems will improve patient care, but without cooperation more bureaucracy will take valuable health professional time with a lesser result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A major task for the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) is to detect early signals of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the WHO Database. The database currently contains over 2.8 million spontaneously reported ADR case reports continuously collected by National Pharmacovigilance Centres in countries participating in the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring. The database is scanned every quarter and drug-ADR combinations are filtered out using different selection criteria intended to catch potential international drug safety signals at an early stage. Summary case data are reviewed by experts on the UMC’s review panel and the signals are presented to the Programme members in the restricted circulation document entitled ‘SIGNAL’. Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate: (i) how the signals presented in ‘SIGNAL’ are used; (ii) if they reach the right target group; (iii) if they are of interest and relevance to the recipients; (iv) if they are timely and; (v) if they make any difference. We were also interested in knowing the view of member countries regarding the definition of what a signal is. Methods: A questionnaire was sent out to 71 countries participating in the WHO Programme. The recipients were asked to state what actions were taken for 26 different signal headings included in three issues of ‘SIGNAL’ sent out during 2001 and to rate how useful they considered these topics to be. Results: Responses were received from 45 countries (63%). The Centres’ average ratings of relevance, importance and usefulness on a scale 1–10 of the selected 26 signals were all above the expected average rating 5.5. The content of ‘SIGNAL’ in general was seen as always or often useful in 63.5% of the respondents. In 2001, 17 countries took actions on at least one signal. Actions were rarely taken without considering the signal from the UMC. All responding centres agreed on the WHO definition of a signal, but there were differences in the interpretation of what constitutes a signal. Conclusion: The ‘SIGNAL’ publication is timely, plays an important role and has a direct impact on drug safety issues handled by members of the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few years, a number of drugs have been withdrawn for safety reasons, either by drug approval authorities, or by the manufacturer. A recent example is the withdrawal of cerivastatin in connection with rhabdomyolysis. Several other drugs have also been taken off the market as a security measure, not because the nature of the risk involved was unknown but because the risk had proved apparently uncontainable. It seems that the inclusion of a warning or contraindication in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) or sending a ‘Dear Doctor’ letter is insufficient to ensure compliant prescription behaviour. There appears to be a discrepancy between the careful use of evidence underpinning the SPC content and formal warnings and changes to the SPC and the effect they have on the prescription and dispensing of the drugs involved. This results in undue loss or damage for both the manufacturer and the patient. There are no easy solutions to tackle this problem; the ineffectiveness of labelling and ‘Dear Doctor’ letters has ramifications for the whole regulatory/ industrial/educational complex. We discuss briefly four possible strategies for improving the current situation, with the emphasis on the place the prescriber has in this process. The first strategy is education-based. Clinicians need to know about the comparative merits of the effectiveness and risk of drugs, as well as how they work pharmacologically, toxicologically, and what interactions they have with each other. The second strategy involves improving the information available for clinicians. Frequently, physicians do not consult the SPC for verification, leaving aside whether they have taken notice of the contents of the official SPC in the first place. It is recommended that the accessibility of SPCs is enhanced for doctors and pharmacists, drawing attention specifically to any changes. There needs to be a single body of information that covers every drug. The third strategy involves communication. There is much to be done in this area both in terms of follow-up and understanding of health professional's behaviour and how to empower best practise. The final strategy involves professional freedom. It goes without saying that doctors who issue off-label prescriptions may need to justify their actions. Deviating from the SPC should always be a considered decision and health professionals need to be aware of the additional responsibilities associated with such a decision. The dispensing pharmacist can play an important role in the implementation of warnings and contraindications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The WHO database contains over 2.5 million case reports, analysis of this data set is performed with the intention of signal detection. This paper presents an overview of the quantitative method used to highlight dependencies in this data set. The method Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN) is used to highlight dependencies in the data set. The method uses Bayesian statistics implemented in a neural network architecture to analyse all reported drug adverse reaction combinations. This method is now in routine use for drug adverse reaction signal detection. Also this approach has been extended to highlight drug group effects and look for higher order dependencies in the WHO data. Quantitatively unexpectedly strong relationships in the data are highlighted relative to general reporting of suspected adverse effects; these associations are then clinically assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The detection of unknown and unexpected connections between drug exposure and adverse events is one of the major challenges of pharmacovigilance. For the identification of possible connections in large databases, automated statistical systems have been introduced with promising results. From the large numbers of associations so produced, the human mind has to identify signals that are likely to be important, in need of further assessment and follow-up and that may require regulatory action. Such decisions are based on a variety of clinical, epidemiological, pharmacological and regulatory criteria. Likewise, there are a number of criteria that underlie the subsequent evaluation of such signals. A good understanding of the logic underlying these processes fosters rational pharmacovigilance and efficient drug regulation. In the future a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria may be incorporated in automated signal detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]