Search

Fatal Adverse Events (FADEs) are a major public health problem, and some FADEs could be preventable. The aim of the present study is to describe the frequency, the drugs involved and the preventability in the FADEs collected through the MEREAFaPS Study between 2012 and 2018. All cases including the outcome “death” have been examined. We excluded cases with vaccine-related ADEs, overdose or suicide, and ADEs occurred during the hospitalisation. Two trained assessors evaluated all cases fulfilling the inclusion criteria. ADEs’ preventability was evaluated applying the Schumock and Thornton algorithm. During the study period, we observed 429 cases of death, 92 of which were excluded. The remaining 337 cases involved 187 women and 150 men, with a mean age of 79 and of 77years, respectively. For each report, the suspected drugs and concomitant ones were 1.26 and 4.20, respectively. Anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents account for more than 40% of FADE cases and the most frequent reactions are haemorrhages (37.5%). The 25% of the FADEs were preventable. This study confirms that FADEs are still a relevant clinical occurrence, and are often caused by widely used old drugs associated with adverse events. The death of one in four patients was preventable. Further efforts should be done to improve the appropriateness of the therapy, especially in older patients who are treated with anticoagulants.

Introduction Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9Is) were associated with a risk of neurocognitive adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Objective We aimed to investigate the occurrence of neuropsychiatric ADRs related to PCSK9Is. Methods We analyzed Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) sent through the European pharmacovigilance database that reported alirocumab or evolocumab as the suspected drug and at least one neurological or psychiatric ADR. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was computed to compare the probability of reporting ICSRs with neuropsychiatric ADRs between alirocumab, evolocumab and statins. Results Overall, 2041 ICSRs with alirocumab and/or evolocumab as the suspected drug described the occurrence of neuropsychiatric ADRs. The most reported preferred terms for both drugs were headache, insomnia and depression. No difference between alirocumab and evolocumab was observed for the RORs of ICSRs with ADRs belonging to the System Organ Classes (SOCs) ‘Nervous system disorders’ or ‘Psychiatric disorders’ (ROR 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.91–1.14; and 1.12, 95% CI 0.94–1.34, respectively), while evolocumab and alirocumab had a higher reporting probability of ICSRs with ADRs belonging to the SOC ‘Nervous system disorders’ compared with atorvastatin and fluvastatin. A lower reporting probability was instead found for ICSRs with ADRs belonging to the SOC ‘Psychiatric disorders’ for evolocumab and alirocumab versus simvastatin, pravastatin and rosuvastatin. Conclusion Our results demonstrated that 22.7% of all ICSRs reporting alirocumab or evolocumab as suspect drugs described the occurrence of neuropsychiatric ADRs. The ROR showed that evolocumab and alirocumab had a higher reporting probability of neurological ADRs compared with statins. Further data from real-life contexts are needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-020-01021-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: The European post-authorisation study (EU PAS) register is a repository launched in 2010 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All EMA-requested PAS, commonly observational studies, must be recorded in this register. Multi-database studies (MDS) leveraging secondary data have become an important strategy to conduct PAS in recent years, as reflected by the type of studies registered in the EU PAS register. Objectives: To analyse and describe PAS in the EU PAS register, with focus on MDS. Methods: Studies in the EU PAS register from inception to 31st December 2018 were described concerning transparency, regulatory obligations, scope, study type (e.g., observational study, clinical trial, survey, systematic review/meta-analysis), study design, type of data collection and target population. MDS were defined as studies conducted through secondary use of >1 data source not linked at patient-level. Data extraction was carried out independently by 14 centres with expertise in pharmacoepidemiology, using publicly available information in the EU PAS register including study protocol, whenever available, using a standardised data collection form. For validation purposes, a second revision of key fields for a 15% random sample of studies was carried out by a different centre. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) was then calculated. Finally, to identify predictors of primary data collection-based studies/versus those based on secondary use of healthcare databases) or MDS (vs. non-MDS), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated fitting univariate logistic regression models. Results: Overall, 1426 studies were identified. Clinical trials (N = 30; 2%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (N = 16; 1%) and miscellaneous study designs (N = 46; 3%) were much less common than observational studies (N = 1227; 86%). The protocol was available for 63% (N = 360) of 572 observational studies requested by a competent authority. Overall, 36% (N = 446) of observational studies were based fully or partially on primary data collection. Of 757 observational studies based on secondary use of data alone, 282 (37%) were MDS. Drug utilisation was significantly more common as a study scope in MDS compared to non-MDS studies. The overall percentage agreement among collaborating centres that collected the data concerning study variables was highest for study type (93.5%) and lowest for type of secondary data (67.8%). Conclusions: Observational studies were the most common type of studies in the EU PAS register, but 30% used primary data, which is more resource-intensive. Almost half of observational studies using secondary data were MDS. Data recording in the EU PAS register may be improved further, including more widespread availability of study protocols to improve transparency.

COVID-19 is a complex disease, and many difficulties are faced today especially in the proper choice of pharmacological treatments. The role of antiviral agents for COVID-19 is still being investigated and evidence for immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory drugs is quite conflicting, whereas the use of corticosteroids is supported by robust evidence. The use of heparins in hospitalized critically ill patients is preferred over other anticoagulants. There are conflicting data on the use of convalescent plasma and vitamin D. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), many vaccines are in Phase III clinical trials, and some of them have already received marketing approval in European countries and in the United States. In conclusion, drug repurposing has represented the main approach recently used in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. At this moment, analysis of efficacy and safety data of drugs and vaccines used in real-life context is strongly needed. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on The second wave: are we any closer to efficacious pharmacotherapy for COVID 19? (BJP 75th Anniversary). To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v179.10/issuetoc.

Clinical guidelines suggest that for patients with heart failure and concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol should be preferred over carvedilol. However, studies suggest a high proportion of carvedilol usage that remains unexplained. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the predictors of carvedilol choice in patients with heart failure and COPD that were naïve to carvedilol or metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol. Caserta Local Health Unit databases (Italy) were used as data sources. Age, sex, chronic/acute comorbidities, and co-medications were included in a logistic regression model to assess predictors of carvedilol choice. Chronic comorbidities include those defined in the Elixhauser comorbidity index and all hospitalizations within two years prior to the first beta-blocker prescription. Comedications include all redeemed prescriptions within one year prior to the beta-blocker prescription. Kernel density estimations were used to assess the overlap in propensity and preference scores distributions for receiving carvedilol and thereby potential beta-blocker exchangeability. Totally, 10091 patients composed the study population; 2011 were exposed to carvedilol. The overlapping of propensity scores distributions was 57%. Accordingly, the exchangeability was not reached. Atrioventricular block (Odds Ratio, OR 8.20; 95% Confidence Interval, 95% CI 1.30–51.80), cerebrovascular thrombosis (OR 7.06; 95% CI 1.14–43.68), chronic kidney disease (OR 4.32; 95% CI 1.16–16.02), and acute heart failure (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.28–3.03) hospitalizations were statistically significantly associated with carvedilol choice. Analogously, human insulin (OR 3.00; 95% CI 1.24–7.24), fondaparinux (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.17–5.21) or strontium ranelate (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.06–3.90) redeemed prescriptions. In conclusion, this study suggests the absence of beta-blockers exchangeability and a preferential choice of carvedilol in patients with heart failure, COPD and concurrent chronic kidney disease, atrioventricular block, cerebrovascular thrombosis, acute heart failure or redeeming human insulin, fondaparinux or strontium ranelate prescriptions. Therefore, it suggests that choice of prescribing carvedilol over metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol is driven by differences in comorbidities and co-treatments.

The aim of this study was to investigate the scientific contribution of Italian clinical research for contrast media-induced nonrenal adverse drug reactions over the last three decades. Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Methodology Register were used as data sources to identify Italian descriptive studies, observational studies, meta-analyses, and clinical trials assessing contrast media-induced nonrenal adverse drug reactions as a safety outcome. The population of interest was men and women exposed to a contrast medium. Between 1990 and 2017, 24 original articles investigating contrast-induced nonrenal adverse drug reactions were identified. The cohort study was the most representative study design (10/24; 41.7%). The 24 studies were conducted mainly as monocenter studies (14/24; 58.3%) and without receiving funding (17/24; 70.8%). Seventeen out of 24 studies provided a level of evidence ranging from III-2 (11/24; 45.8%) to IV (6/24; 25.0%) on a Merlin scale. In total, 14 of 24 (58.3%) studies were published in a scientific journal ranked in the first quartile of their subject area. The 24 original articles mainly focused on adverse drug reactions already observed during clinical trials (i.e., idiosyncratic systemic reactions). In conclusion, during the last three decades and a burst was not observed in the Italian clinical research investigating contrast-induced nonrenal adverse drug reactions. High-quality clinical research is needed especially for procedures to prevent the onset of the aforementioned events, to identify risk factors, to minimize the risk of their occurrence, and to optimize their related prognosis.

Objective: During the last years in Italy, contrast media (CM) use increased. An increase of monitoring activities on CM-induced adverse drug reaction (ADR) is necessary, also in our regional territory. The main aim of this study was to give a preliminary evaluation of all Spontaneous Reports of ADRs (SRA) attributed to CM sent to Campania Pharmacovigilance Regional Center (CRFVC) from 01 January 2001 to 31 October 2014.Research design and methods: For each SRA we evaluated: frequency and source, ADRs onset (time to event, seriousness and outcome), socio-demographic characteristics and risk factors of cases, the most reported CM (checking for pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions).Results: A total of 111 SRA were sent to CRFVC; specialist in radiology was the main source of reports. Ninety-seven SRA (87.3%) were referable to hypersensitivity reactions. Thirty-four SRA (30.6%) reported serious ADRs. The most reported CM were iopamidol, gadobenic acid and gadoteric acid. We identified two SRA induced by pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic interactions.Conclusions: During 14 years of post-marketing surveillance, only few SRA concerning CM-induced ADRs were sent to CRFVC probably due to underreporting. We aim to improve monitoring activity on CM-induced ADRs especially in hospitals. Most reported ADR and CM were in line with current body of literature.

Causality assessment is a fundamental biomedical technique for the signal detection performed by Pharmacovigilance centers in a Spontaneous reporting system. Moreover, it is a crucial and important practice for detecting preventable adverse drug reactions. Among different methods for causality assessment, algorithms (such as the Naranjo, or Begaud Methods) seem for their operational procedure and easier applicability one of the most commonly used methods. With the upcoming of the new European Pharmacovigilance legislation including in the definition of the adverse event also effects resulting from abuse, misuse and medication error, all well-known preventable causes of ADRs, there was an emerging need to evaluate whether algorithms could fulfill this new definition. In this review, twenty-two algorithmic methods were identified and none of them seemed to fulfill perfectly the new criteria of adverse event although some of them come close. In fact, several issues were arisen in applying causality assessment algorithms to these new definitions as for example the impossibility to answer the rechallenge question in case of medication error or AEFI (Adverse Event Following Immunization). Moreover, the exact conditions at which events occurred, as for example dosage or mode of administration should be considered to better assess causality in conditions of abuse/overdose, or misuse as well as in conditions of lack of expected efficacy reports for biotechnological drugs and adverse event occurring after mixing of vaccines. Therefore, this review highlights the need of updating algorithmic methods to allow a perfect applicability in all possible clinical scenarios accordingly or not with the terms of marketing authorization.

Aim: Drug-induced liver injury is one of the most serious adverse drug reactions and the most frequent reason for restriction of indications or withdrawal of drugs. Some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were withdrawn from the market because of serious hepatotoxicity. We estimated the risk of acute and serious liver injury associated with the use of nimesulide and other NSAIDs, with a prevalence of use greater than or equal to 5%. \ud \ud Methods: This is a multicentre case–control study carried out in nine Italian hospitals from October 2010 to January 2014. Cases were adults, with a diagnosis of acute liver injury. Controls presented acute clinical disorders not related to chronic conditions, not involving the liver. Adjusted odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated initially with a bivariate and then multivariate analysis. \ud \ud Results: We included 179 cases matched to 1770 controls. Adjusted OR for acute serious liver injury associated with all NSAIDs was 1.69, 95% CI 1.21–2.37. Thirty cases were exposed to nimesulide (adjusted OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.28–3.47); the risk increased according to the length of exposure (OR > 30 days: 12.55, 95% CI 1.73–90.88) and to higher doses (OR 10.69, 95% CI 4.02–28.44). Risk of hepatotoxicity was increased also for ibuprofen, used both at recommended dosages (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.13–3.26) and at higher doses (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.11–12.46) and for ketoprofen ≥ 150 mg (OR 4.65, 95% CI 1.33–10.00). \ud \ud Conclusion: Among all NSAIDs, nimesulide is associated with the higher risk, ibuprofen and high doses of ketoprofen are also associated with a modestly increased risk of hepatotoxicity.

An undesirable effect (UE) of a cosmetic product is a harmful reaction attributable to its normal or reasonably foreseeable use. However, the knowledge of UEs, at the population level, is limited by the absence of formal and reliable cosmetovigilance systems, which nevertheless are characterized by underreporting. To test the feasibility of the collection of UEs in our territory we have carried out a pilot project aimed to assess either the notification procedures or the validation/evaluation of the collected forms in our territory. As reporting categories, we have chosen dermatologists and community pharmacists who were asked to notify UEs to cosmetics through a reporting form we have set up. During the period July 2006-December 2007, we have registered 76 reporting forms. Dermatologists who have sent 47 reporting forms represented the main reporting category, followed by community pharmacists (15 reports), other health professionals (9 reports) and consumers (5 reports). Several drawbacks, mainly represented by the incompleteness and inaccuracy of the filled in forms, affected the validation process. Thus, on receipt, we could validate only 34 forms and only after a careful check with each single reporter, we could include in the study other 36 forms. The validation of the collected reports has stressed the importance of a well-structured reporting form, an easy access to notification procedures as well as education and training programme. The evaluation of the validated forms has revealed the need of a controlled term vocabulary for the classification of the observed events and diagnosis, especially with regard to cutaneous reactions that represented almost the totality of the reported events (95.7%). Among the events (n = 45) reported by dermatologists, 22 were diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and 18 as irritant contact dermatitis (ICD). Facial care products (19.7%), followed by body care products (16.9%), perfumes (12.7%) and eye care products (11.3%) were the cosmetics mainly suspected to be responsible for the observed events. Correspondingly, face (n = 37), including periorbital and perioral area, forehead, ocular mucous membrane and lips, followed by entire body (n = 9) were the body sites reported as more involved. In conclusions, our experience allowed us to identify the main pitfalls of the system we have experienced. These are setting/formulation of the reporting form, notification step, description of the event and diagnosis. A careful settlement of these aspects could substantially contribute to the establishment of an efficient reporting system, although the bias due to underreporting is difficult to eliminate. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Purpose: Available guidelines on therapeutic drug monitoring of second-generation antipsychotics were designed for adults; therefore, they cannot be transferred as such in pediatric patients, who may have different drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination. Moreover, available tools that guide dosing in neuropsychiatric pediatric patients are scant, leading to the possibility of reduced efficacy and/or increased risks of toxicity. Here we describe the results of observational therapeutic drug monitoring conducted in three pediatric neuropsychiatry units across Italy in 2012-2014, with the following aims: (1) to describe the distribution of plasma concentrations of second-generation antipsychotics in our pediatric patients and (2) to identify clinical covariates associated with plasma drug levels. Methods: Five hundred fifty-six plasma trough concentrations of the second-generation antipsychotics risperidone (plus 9-hydroxy-risperidone), aripiprazole, olanzapine, and quetiapine were measured from 172 pediatric outpatients overall. The distribution of drug concentrations was described and correlated with drug doses and clinical variables. Results: Risperidone plasma levels were lower than in adults (median 13.6 ng/ml), with a high inter-patient (78.9 %) but lower intra-patient (34.2 %) variability. In multiple regression analyses, risperidone plasma levels depended only on drug dose (p < 0.001). Aripiprazole plasma levels were similar to those described in adults (median 165.8 ng/ml) and were widely distributed, with an inter-patient variability of 81.1 %, while the intra-patient variability was much lower (29.3 %). Multiple regression analyses indicated that aripiprazole plasma levels were influenced by the daily doses (p < 0.001) and by the number of concomitant drugs (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Our study described the distribution of plasma levels of SGAs in a real-life setting involving pediatric patients, significantly increasing the amount of available data for this fragile population. If confirmed in larger dataset, these data may contribute to the definition of optimal therapeutic window for risperidone and aripiprazole plasma levels in pediatric patients.

Background: Several guidelines for the management of respiratory tract infections in children are available in Italy, as well as in other European countries and the United States of America. However, poor adherence to guidelines and the sustained inappropriate use of antibiotics have been reported. In the outpatient setting, almost half of antibiotics are prescribed for the treatment of common respiratory tract infections. In Italy the antibiotic prescription rate is significantly higher than in other European countries, such as Denmark or the Netherlands, and also the levels of antibiotic resistance for a large variety of bacteria are higher. Therefore, the Italian Society of Preventive and Social Paediatrics organised a consensus conference for the treatment of respiratory tract infections in children to produce a brief, easily readable, evidence-based document. Methods: The conference method was used, according to the National Institute of Health and the National Plan Guidelines. A literature search was performed focusing on the current guidelines for the treatment of airway infections in children aged 1 month-18 years in the ambulatory setting. Results: Recommendations for the treatment of acute pharyngitis, acute otitis media, sinusitis, and pneumonia have been summarized. Conditions for which antibiotic treatment should not be routinely prescribed have been highlighted. Conclusion: This evidence-based document is intended to accessible to primary care pediatricians and general practice physicians in order to make clinical practice uniform, in accordance with the recommendations of the current guidelines. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Osteoporosis increases dramatically with age. About 40 % of women in developed countries will experience an osteoporosis-related fracture in the course of their lifetime, with men experiencing approximately one-third to one-half the risk of women. The “lipid hypothesis of osteoporosis” claims for a role of oxidized lipids as a contributing factor in osteoporosis. On the other hand, statins are supposed to exert anabolic effects on the bone, either through their lipid-lowering action or signal pathways that are independent of their effects on lipid levels. The epidemiological evidence seems to suggest that higher triglycerides may give some protection against fracture, although no association with reduced fracture risk has been reported between lipid-lowering drug (except statins) users and non-users. The epidemiological evidence for a role of statins in osteoporosis is strong, with a lower fracture risk ranging from 30 to 40 % in statin users versus non-users. However, some pitfalls inherent to observational studies (high heterogeneity, residual confounding, potential publication bias) and the lack of association in randomized trials suggest caution. At the moment, the evidence for a role of statins in prevention of osteoporosis is insufficient to recommend starting statin therapy with the aim to prevent osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: Our intensive pharmacosurveillance monitoring program was performed to increase the number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) recorded in the Italian spontaneous reporting database, and to systematically collect more thorough data about atomoxetine (ATX) and methylphenidate (MPH) safety in the pediatric setting. METHODS: From September 2007 to October 2010, 1841 youth were enrolled in the Italian Attention- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Register, but we report here on the 76 children from the five Reference Prescription Centers in Campania, an Italian region where we administered our systematic adverse event checklist. RESULTS: Among our cohort, 68 children received a prescription of ATX and 8 received a prescription of MPH. Most children were male and between 10 and 13 years of age, had a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder-combined (ADHD-C) and had learning disability as the main comorbidity. Most ADRs reported to the Italian spontaneous reporting database occurred in patients from Campania. Twenty-five experienced at least 1 ADR for a total of 40 ADRs reported to the Italian drug agency. Most ADRs were common and not serious, and resolved completely. Weight loss was the most frequently reported ADR. Only two ADRs were unexpected and only one was uncommon. Sixteen ADRs resulted in permanent drug withdrawal. Based on the Naranjo algorithm, 25 ADRs were considered "probable" and 15 were considered "possible." CONCLUSIONS: Although our data provide reassurance of the safety of ATX and MPH, several unexpected or uncommon ADRs (hepatomegaly, suicidal ideation, weight gain, or drug interactions) were identified by our intensive pharmacosurveillance monitoring program. Our results show that an intensive pharmacosurveillance monitoring program that involves pharmacovigilance centers and clinicians can improve the collection of information on drug safety in children.