Search

Background Myocarditis and pericarditis following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines administration have been reported, but their frequency is still uncertain in the younger population. This study investigated the association between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 and myocarditis/pericarditis in the population of vaccinated persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy. Methods and findings We conducted a self-controlled case series study (SCCS) using national data on COVID-19 vaccination linked to emergency care/hospital discharge databases. The outcome was the first diagnosis of myocarditis/pericarditis between 27 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. Exposure risk period (0 to 21 days from the vaccination day, subdivided in 3 equal intervals) for first and second dose was compared with baseline period. The SCCS model, adapted to event-dependent exposures, was fitted using unbiased estimating equations to estimate relative incidences (RIs) and excess of cases (EC) per 100,000 vaccinated by dose, age, sex, and vaccine product. Calendar period was included as time-varying confounder in the model. During the study period 2,861,809 persons aged 12 to 39 years received mRNA vaccines (2,405,759 BNT162b2; 456,050 mRNA-1273); 441 participants developed myocarditis/pericarditis (346 BNT162b2; 95 mRNA-1273). Within the 21-day risk interval, 114 myocarditis/pericarditis events occurred, the RI was 1.99 (1.30 to 3.05) after second dose of BNT162b2 and 2.22 (1.00 to 4.91) and 2.63 (1.21 to 5.71) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. During the [0 to 7) days risk period, an increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was observed after first dose of mRNA-1273, with RI of 6.55 (2.73 to 15.72), and after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, with RIs of 3.39 (2.02 to 5.68) and 7.59 (3.26 to 17.65). The number of EC for second dose of mRNA-1273 was 5.5 per 100,000 vaccinated (3.0 to 7.9). The highest risk was observed in males, at [0 to 7) days after first and second dose of mRNA-1273 with RI of 12.28 (4.09 to 36.83) and RI of 11.91 (3.88 to 36.53); the number of EC after the second dose of mRNA-1273 was 8.8 (4.9 to 12.9). Among those aged 12 to 17 years, the RI was of 5.74 (1.52 to 21.72) after second dose of BNT162b2; for this age group, the number of events was insufficient for estimating RIs after mRNA-1273. Among those aged 18 to 29 years, the RIs were 7.58 (2.62 to 21.94) after first dose of mRNA-1273 and 4.02 (1.81 to 8.91) and 9.58 (3.32 to 27.58) after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273; the numbers of EC were 3.4 (1.1 to 6.0) and 8.6 (4.4 to 12.6) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. The main study limitations were that the outcome was not validated through review of clinical records, and there was an absence of information on the length of hospitalization and, thus, the severity of the outcome. Conclusions This population-based study of about 3 millions of residents in Italy suggested that mRNA vaccines were associated with myocarditis/pericarditis in the population younger than 40 years. According to our results, increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was associated with the second dose of BNT162b2 and both doses of mRNA-1273. The highest risks were observed in males of 12 to 39 years and in males and females 18 to 29 years vaccinated with mRNA-1273. The public health implication of these findings should be considered in the light of the proven mRNA vaccine effectiveness in preventing serious COVID-19 disease and death.

Objectives To ascertain if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)/chloroquine (CLQ) and other conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) use, and rheumatic diseases per se, may be associated with COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization and mortality. Methods This case-control study nested within a cohort of cDMARD users was conducted in the Lombardy, Veneto, Tuscany and Lazio regions and Reggio Emilia province. Claims databases were linked to COVID-19 surveillance registries. Risk of COVID-19-related outcomes was estimated using a multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis, comparing HCQ/CLQ vs methotrexate, vs other cDMARDs and vs non-use of these drugs. Presence of rheumatic diseases vs their absence in a non-nested population was investigated. Results 1275 cases hospitalized due to COVID-19 were matched to 12 734 controls. Compared with recent use of methotrexate, no association between HCQ/CLQ monotherapy and COVID-19 hospitalization (OR 0.83 [95%CI, 0.69–1.00]) or mortality (OR 1.19 [95%CI, 0.85–1.67]) was observed. A lower risk was found when comparing HCQ/CLQ use to the concomitant use of other cDMARDs and glucocorticoids. HCQ/CLQ was not associated with COVID-19 hospitalization as compared with non-use. An increased risk for recent use of either methotrexate monotherapy (OR 1.19 [95% CI, 1.05–1.34]) or other cDMARDs (OR 1.21 [95% CI, 1.08–1.36]) vs non-use was found. Rheumatic diseases were not associated with COVID-19-related outcomes. Conclusion HCQ/CLQ use in rheumatic patients was not associated with a protective effect against COVID-19-related outcomes. Use of other cDMARDs was associated with an increased risk when compared with non-use, and, if concomitantly used with glucocorticoids, also vs HCQ/CLQ, probably to be ascribed to immunosuppressive action.

Introduction The epidemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been spreading globally, raising increasing concerns. There are several controversial hypotheses on the potentially harmful or beneficial effects of antihypertensive drugs acting on the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, there is accumulating evidence, based on several observational studies, that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) do not increase the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection. On the other hand, conflicting findings regarding the role of ACEIs/ARBs as prognosis modifiers in COVID-19 hospitalised patients have been reported. Objective The aim of this large-scale, retrospective cohort study was to investigate whether prior exposure to ACEIs and/or ARBs was associated with all-cause mortality among over 40,000 hospitalised COVID-19 patients compared with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a potential therapeutic alternative. Methods This study was conducted using COVID-19 registries linked to claims databases from Lombardy, Veneto and Reggio Emilia (overall, 25% of Italian population). Overall, 42,926 patients hospitalised between 21 February and 21 April 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction tests were included in this study. All-cause mortality occurring in or out of hospital, as reported in the COVID-19 registry, was estimated. Using Cox models, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause mortality (along with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated separately for ACEIs/ARBs and other antihypertensives versus CCBs and non-use. Results Overall, 11,205 in- and out-of-hospital deaths occurred over a median of 24 days of follow-up after hospital admission due to COVID-19. Compared with CCBs, adjusted analyses showed no difference in the risk of death among ACEI (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89–1.06) or ARB (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89–1.06) users. When non-use of antihypertensives was considered as a comparator, a modest statistically significant increase in mortality risk was observed for any antihypertensive use. However, when restricting to drugs with antihypertensive indications only, these marginal increases disappeared. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed our main findings. Conclusions ACEI/ARB use is not associated with either an increased or decreased risk of all-cause mortality, compared with CCB use, in the largest cohort of hospitalised COVID-19 patients exposed to these drugs studied to date. The use of these drugs therefore does not affect the prognosis of COVID-19. This finding strengthens recommendations of international regulatory agencies about not withdrawing/switching ACEI/ARB treatments to modify COVID-19 prognosis. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-020-00994-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Eliana Ferroni,1 Paolo Giorgi Rossi,2 Stefania Spila Alegiani,3 Gianluca Trifirò,4 Gisella Pitter,1 Olivia Leoni,5 Danilo Cereda,5 Massimiliano Marino,2 Michele Pellizzari,1 Massimo Fabiani,6 Flavia Riccardo,6 Janet Sultana,4 Marco Massari3 On behalf of The ITA-COVID Working Group1Azienda Zero of the Veneto Region, Padua, Italy; 2Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale – IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy; 3National Center for Drug Research and Evaluation, Istituto Superiore Di Sanità, Rome, Italy; 4Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging – University of Messina, Messina, Italy; 5Department of Health of Lombardy Region, Milan, Italy; 6Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore Di Sanità, Rome, ItalyCorrespondence: Stefania Spila AlegianiIstituto Superiore Di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena, 299, Rome 00161, ItalyTel +39 0649904249Fax +39 0649904248Email stefania.spila@iss.itPaolo Giorgi RossiAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale – IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, via Amendola 2, Reggio Emilia 42122, ItalyTel +39 0522335490Email paolo.giorgirossi@ausl.re.itIntroduction: COVID-19 case fatality rate in hospitalized patients varies across countries and studies. Reliable estimates, specific for age, sex, and comorbidities, are needed to monitor the epidemic, to compare the outcome in different settings, and to correctly design trials for COVID-19 interventions. The aim of this study was to provide population-based survival curves of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Materials and Methods: A cohort study was conducted in three areas of Northern Italy, heavily affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection (Lombardy and Veneto Regions, and Reggio Emilia province), using a loco-regional COVID-19 surveillance system, linked to hospital discharge databases. We included all patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal/throat swab samples who were hospitalized from 21 February to 21 April 2020. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates were calculated at 14 and 30 days for death in any setting, stratifying by age, sex, and the Charlson Index.Results: Overall, 42,926 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were identified. Patients’ median age was 69 years (IQR: 57– 79), 62.6% were males, and 6.0% had a Charlson Index ≥ 3. Survival curves showed that 22.0% (95% CI 21.6– 22.4) of patients died within 14 days and 27.6% (95% CI 27.2– 28.1) within 30 days from hospitalization. Survival was higher in younger patients and in females. The negative impact of comorbidities on survival was more pronounced in younger age groups.Conclusion: The high fatality rate observed in the study (28% at 30 days) suggests that studies should focus on death as primary endpoint during a follow-up of at least one month.Keywords: COVID-19, survival, cohort study, hospitalized patients, Italy

Enormous progress has been made globally in the use of evidence derived from patients’ clinical information as they access their routine medical care. The value of real-world data lies in their complementary nature compared with data from randomised controlled trials: less detailed information on drug efficacy but longer observational periods and larger, more heterogeneous study populations reflecting clinical practice because individuals are included who would not usually be recruited in trials. Real-world data can be collected in various types of electronic sources, such as electronic health records, claims databases and drug or disease registries. These data sources vary in nature from country to country, according to national healthcare system structures and national policies. In Italy, a growing number of healthcare databases have been used to evaluate post-marketing drug utilisation and safety in the last two decades. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the available Italian sources of real-world data and their contribution to generating post-marketing evidence on drug use and safety. We also discuss the strengths and limitations of the most commonly used Italian healthcare databases in addressing various research questions concerning drug utilisation, comparative effectiveness and safety studies, as well as health technology assessment and other areas.

Aims The aim of the study was to analyze the prescribing pattern of both newer and older AEDs. Methods A population of almost 150 000 individuals registered with 123 general practitioners was included in this study. Patients who received at least one AED prescription over 2005-2011 were identified. The 1 year prevalence and cumulative incidence of AED use, by drug class and individual drug, were calculated over the study period. Potential predictors of starting therapy with newer AEDs were also investigated. Results The prevalence of use per 1000 inhabitants of older AEDs increased from 10.7 (95% CI10.1, 11.2) in 2005 to 13.0 (95% CI12.4, 13.6) in 2011, while the incidence remained stable. Newer AED incidence decreased from 9.4 (95% CI 8.9, 9.9) in 2005 to 7.0 (95% CI 6.6, 7.5) in 2011, with a peak of 15.5 (95% CI 14.8, 16.1) in 2006. Phenobarbital and valproic acid were the most commonly prescribed AEDs as starting therapy for epilepsy. Gabapentin and pregabalin accounted for most new pain-related prescriptions, while valproic acid and lamotrigine were increasingly used for mood disorders. Female gender (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.20, 1.53), age ranging between 45-54 years (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.16, 1.66) and pain as an indication (OR 16.7, 95% CI, 13.1, 21.2) were associated with newer AEDs starting therapy. Conclusions Older AEDs were mainly used for epileptic and mood disorders, while newer drugs were preferred for neuropathic pain. Gender, age, indication of use and year of starting therapy influenced the choice of AED type. The decrease of newer AED use during 2007 is probably related to the restricted reimbursement criteria for gabapentin and pregabalin.

Objectives To investigate the relationship between warfarin treatment and different strata of all-cause mortality risk assessed using the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) based on information collected using the Standardized Multidimensional Assessment Schedule for Adults and Aged Persons (SVaMA) in community-dwelling older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). Design Retrospective observational study. Setting Older community-dwelling adults who underwent a SVaMA evaluation establishing accessibility to homecare services and nursing home admission from 2005 to 2013 in the Padova Health District, Italy. Participants Community-dwelling individuals with AF aged 65 and older (N = 1,827). Measurements Participants were classified as being at mild (MPI-SVaMA-1), moderate (MPI-SVaMA-2), or severe (MPI-SVaMA-3) risk of mortality using the MPI-SVaMA, a validated prognostic tool based on age, sex, comorbidity, cognitive status, mobility and functional disability, pressure sore risk, and social support. The association between warfarin treatment and mortality was tested using multivariate- and propensity score–adjusted Cox regression models, controlling for age, sex, all SVaMA domains, concomitant diseases, and drug treatments. Results Higher MPI-SVaMA scores were associated with lower rates of warfarin treatment and higher 3-year mortality. After adjustment for propensity score quintiles, warfarin treatment was significantly associated with lower 2-year mortality in individuals with MPI-SVaMA-1 (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50–0.82), MPI-SVaMA-2 (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55–0.85), and MPI-SVaMA-3 (HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.44–0.67). Heterogeneity analyses confirmed that the effect of warfarin treatment was not different between MPI-SVaMA groups (P for heterogeneity = .48). Conclusion Community-dwelling older adults with AF benefitted from anticoagulation in terms of lower all-cause mortality over a mean follow-up of 2 years, regardless of poor health and functional condition. Although this benefit can be ascribed to the treatment, it may also reflect better overall care.

OBJECTIVE This study aims to evaluate the frequency of off-label use of ketorolac in Italy and the related suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported. METHODS All the suspected cases associated with ketorolac recorded in the Italian Pharmacovigilance database were retrieved. Case evaluations were carried out in order to identify the off-label use of ketorolac. Moreover, an analysis of the inappropriate use of ketorolac was conducted using the 'Arianna' database of Caserta local health unit. RESULTS Up to December 2014, 822 reports of suspected ADRs related to ketorolac were retrieved in the database. The use of ketorolac was classified as off-label for 553 reports and on-label for 269. Among the off-label cases, 58.6% were serious compared to 39.0% of on-label cases. Gastrointestinal events were more frequently reported with off-label use. The analysis of Arianna database showed that 37,729 out of 61,910 patients, were treated off-label. CONCLUSIONS The off-label use of ketorolac is widespread in Italy. This use increases the risk of serious ADR, especially in in case of prolonged duration of treatment and in elderly patients. The Italian Medicine Agency has decided to accurately monitor the appropriate use of the drug in Italy and, if necessary, take measures in order to minimize the risks.

Biologicals are important treatment options for various chronic diseases. After the introduction of the first biosimilars, animated debate arose in the scientific community about the actual benefit–risk profile of these drugs. In this context, a comparative safety evaluation of biologicals and biosimilars in clinical practice is warranted. We identified all suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) concerning biological/biosimilars (excluding vaccines, toxins, blood derivatives, and radio-pharmaceuticals), and further classified them into mechanistic classes. We described the frequency of biological/biosimilar class- and compound-specific ADRs by system organ class (SOC) and type of reporter. We also separately explored the traceability of biologicals and biosimilar-related ADR reports. Overall 171,201 ADR reports were collected during the observation period; 9,601 (5.6 %) of these concerned biologicals. Biological-related reports were mainly issued by hospital-based physicians (78.7 %). Most of these reports involved monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins (66.3 %). Reported ADRs were mainly ‘skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders’ (21 %), ‘general and administration site disorders’ (17 %), and ‘gastrointestinal disorders’ (13.6 %). In terms of traceability, 94.8 % of biological-related reports included an identifiable product name, whilst only 8.6 % indicated the corresponding batch number. Regarding biosimilars, 298 reports were identified, with a low proportion indicating drug ineffectiveness (10.1 %). Most ADRs attributed to biologicals are ‘skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders’. Anticancer monoclonal antibodies are most frequently associated with ADRs. A low proportion of ADR reports concern biosimilars.

The aims of the study were to assess the trend of older and newer anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) in the elderly population and to analyze the effects of a health-policy intervention with regard to AED use in general practice in a setting in Southern Italy.Data were extracted from the 'Caserta-1' Local-Health-Unit Arianna database in the years 2004-07. Patients aged over 65 years, receiving at least one AED prescription and registered in the lists of 88 general practitioners, were selected. The use of older and newer AEDs was calculated as 1 year prevalence and incidence of use and defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants day(-1) . Sub-analyses by gender, age and indication of use were performed.Most of AED users were treated because of neuropathic pain (64.8%). However, the main indication of use for older AEDs (57.8%) was epilepsy, whereas newer AEDs (79.5%) were used for neuropathic pain. Prevalence and incidence of newer AED use increased until 2006, followed by a reduction in 2007. Newer AEDs, particularly gabapentin and pregabalin, were used in the treatment of more patients than older AEDs. However phenobarbital, accounting for more than 50% of total AED volume, was the most prescribed medication during the entire study period.An increasing use of AEDs has been observed during 2004-07, mostly due to the prescription of newer compounds for neuropathic pain. The fall in the use of newer AEDs during 2007 coincides with revised re-imbursement criteria for gabapentin and pregabalin. The large use of phenobarbital in the elderly should be considered in the light of a risk of adverse drug reactions.

Background The incretin-based medicines GLP1 analogues (GLP1a) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) are hypoglycaemic agents licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Although these drugs possess comparable efficacy and low risk of hypoglycaemia, differences in terms of route of administration (subcutaneous versus oral), effect on body weight and gastrointestinal tolerabily can impact their actual use in clinical practice. This study aimed to describe the real-world utilization of incretin-based medicines in the Italian clinical practice. Methods A multi-database, population-based, descriptive, cohort study was performed using administrative data collected between 2008 and 2014 from three Italian geographic areas. Subjects aged ≥18 were selected. New users were defined as those with ≥1 dispensing of GLP1a or DPP4i during the year of interest and none in the past. Trends of cumulative annual incidence of use in the general adult population were observed. New users of GLP1a or DPP4i were respectively described in terms of demographic characteristics and use of antidiabetic drugs during 1 year before and after the first incretin dispensing. Results The overall study population included 4,943,952 subjects. A total of 7357 new users of GLP1a and 41,907 of DPP4i were identified during the study period. Incidence of use increased between 2008 (0.2‰ for both GLP1a and DPP4i) and 2011 (GLP1a = 0.6‰; DPP4i = 2.5‰) and slightly decreased thereafter. In 2014, 61% of new GLP1a users received once-daily liraglutide while 52% of new DPP4i users received metformin/DPP4i in fixed-dose. The percentage of new DPP4i users older than 65 years of age increased from 30.9 to 62.6% during the study period. Around 12% of new users had not received any antidiabetic before starting an incretin. Conclusions During the study period, DPP4i rapidly became the most prescribed incretin-based medicine, particularly among older new user. The choice of the specific incretin-based medicine at first prescription appeared to be directed towards those with higher convenience of use (e.g. oral DPP4i rather than subcutaneous GLP1a, once-daily liraglutide rather than twice-daily exenatide). The non-negligibile use of incretin-based medicines as first-line pharmacotherapy for T2DM warrants further effectiveness and safety evaluations to better define their place in therapy. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12902-019-0334-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose: Epidemiological data are pivotal for the estimation of disease burden in populations. Aim: Of the study was to estimate the incidence and prevalence of acromegaly in Italy along with the impact of comorbidities and hospitalization rates as compared to the general population. Methods: Retrospective epidemiological study (from 2000 to 2014) and case control-study. Data were extracted from the Health Search Database (HSD). HSD contains patient records from about 1000 general practitioners (GPs) throughout Italy, covering a population of more than 1 million patients. It includes information about patient demographics and medical data including clinical diagnoses and diagnostic tests. Results: At the end of the study period, 74 acromegaly patients (out of 1,066,871 people) were identified, resulting in a prevalence of 6.9 per 100,000 inhabitants [95% CI 5.4–8.5]. Prevalence was higher in females than men (p = 0.004), and showed a statistically significant trend of increase over time (p < 0.0001). Overall, incidence during the study period was 0.31 per 100,000 person-years. Hypertension and type II diabetes mellitus were the comorbidities more frequently associated with acromegaly (31.3 and 14.6%, respectively) and patients were more likely to undergo a high frequency of yearly hospitalization (≥3 accesses/year, p < 0.001) compared to sex-age matched controls. Conclusions: This epidemiological study on acromegaly carried out using a large GP-based database, documented a disease prevalence of about 7 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. As expected, acromegaly was associated with a number of comorbidities (mainly hypertension and type II diabetes mellitus) and a high rate of patients’ hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic (AP) drugs are commonly used to manage the behavioural symptoms of dementia. Nevertheless, international (i.e. the European Medicines Agency in Europe) and national (i.e. the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the UK and the Italian Drug Agency) regulatory agencies issued safety warnings against AP use in dementia in 2004 and 2009.OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the short- and long-term impact of safety warnings on the use of APs in UK and Italian persons with dementia using two nationwide databases: The Health Improvement Network (THIN) from the UK and the Health Search Database-Cegedim-Strategic Data-Longitudinal Patient Database (HSD-CSD-LPD) from Italy.METHODS: We calculated the overall quarterly prevalence of AP use by class and by individual drug in persons with dementia aged ≥65 years and used generalized linear models to explore the effect of the safety warnings.RESULTS: We identified 58,497 and 10,857 individuals aged ≥65 years with dementia from the THIN and HSD-CSD-LPD databases, respectively, over the period 2000-2012. After the 2004 warnings, the use of atypical APs decreased, whereas the use of conventional APs increased, in Italy and the UK until 2009. However, the trend for APs individually showed that the use of risperidone/olanzapine decreased, whereas the use of quetiapine increased in both countries. After the 2009 warnings (until 2012), the use of atypical and conventional APs decreased in the UK (from 11 to 9 and 5 to 3 %, respectively), but such use increased in Italy (from 11 to 18 and 9 to 14 %, respectively).CONCLUSION: The 2004 warnings led to a reduction in the use of olanzapine and risperidone and increased the use of quetiapine/conventional APs in both countries. From 2009, the use of APs decreased in persons with dementia in the UK but not in Italy. Possible reasons for the difference in AP use between the two countries include a more proactive approach towards reducing the use of APs in the UK than in Italy.