Search

Background: Vortioxetine is approved for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, the safety of this drug in a large group of populations is still unclear. Thus, we have tried to analyze the risk profile of vortioxetine. Material and Methods: The data related to the risk profile of vortioxetine has been extracted from Pub-Med from January 2014 to May 2019. The adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have been categorized into listed and unlisted categories as per the Summary of product characteristics (SmPC) of the innovator. Further, unlisted ADRs have been analyzed as per Naranjo Scale. Results: Galactorrhea, hyperprolactinemia, glycolimia, exacerbation of anxiety, weight gain, edema, excessive itching, petechiae, and ecchymoses have been observed with the use of vortioxetine and falls under the unlisted category. Further, the causality assessment results have shown a probable relation between vortioxetine and galactorrhea, hyperprolactinemia, edema, excessive itching, ecchymoses, and petechiae. Weight gain, glycolimia and exacerbation of anxiety have a possible relationship with vortioxetine. The common ADRs observed with the use of vortioxetine are nausea, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, pruritus, including pruritus generalized, abnormal dreams, and dizziness. Conclusion: In conclusion, more data is required to establish a strong relationship between vortioxetine and reported unlisted ADRs.

Background: In 2005, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released guidance on pharmacokinetic studies in patients with hepatic impairment. This guidance describes the design of these studies and what information should be presented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). We aim to evaluate the availability and clinical applicability of information on medicine use in patients with hepatic impairment in SmPCs and registrational dossiers of recently approved medicines.Methods: We reviewed SmPC information on use in patients with hepatic impairment of 51 new medicines authorized between 2015 and 2017. Per medicine, we assessed the availability of nine information items derived from the EMA guidance, i.e. type of hepatic disease studied; stratification by severity of hepatic impairment; influence of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics; safety advice in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments; and dosing recommendation in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments. If unavailable, the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and study report were consulted consecutively. Of available items, clinical applicability was assessed by labeling information as "clear" or "ambiguous".Results: Of 51 medicines, 15 had no pharmacokinetic study in patients with hepatic impairment described in their SmPC. The other 36 SmPCs contained on average seven of the nine information items (range 4-9). One SmPC contained all 9 items, and after consulting, the study reports, 11 SmPCs were complete. The item "type of hepatic disease studied" was available in one SmPC, though it could be retrieved in 21 study reports. Regarding clinical applicability, there was no medicine with all information items available and clearly formulated in the SmPC. A total of 12 medicines (33%) contained only clearly formulated information, while 24 (67%) contained at least one ambiguously formulated information item (range 0-4). Items often ambiguously formulated were: "definition of mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment" (15 ambiguous SmPCs) and "safety advice in severe hepatic impairment" (17 ambiguous SmPCs).Conclusion: While SmPCs contain a large part of information requested by the EMA, clinical applicability seems low, as it is often unclear to which specific type of hepatic disease patient the advice applies. This can negatively influence the practical use by healthcare professionals.

Background and Objectives: Appropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is required to avoid under- and overdosing that may precipitate strokes or thromboembolic events and bleedings, respectively. Our objective was to analyze the appropriateness of DOAC dosing according to the summaries of product characteristics (SmPC). Furthermore, determinants for inappropriate prescribing were investigated.Methodology: Retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients aged ≥60 years with at least one DOAC intake during hospital stay. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the characteristics of the study population. Chi-square test was used to evaluate differences between DOACs. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to assess determinants for inappropriate prescribing.Results: For the 772 included patients, inappropriate dosing occurred in 25.0% of hospitalizations with 23.4, 21.9, and 29.7% for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively (p = 0.084). Underdosing was most prevalent for apixaban (24.5%) compared to dabigatran (14.0%) and rivaroxaban (12.8%), p < 0.001. In 67.1% (apixaban), 26.7% (dabigatran), and 51.2% (rivaroxaban) of underdosed DOAC cases according to the SmPC, the dose would be considered appropriate according to the European Heart Rhytm Association (EHRA) guidelines. Overdosing was observed in 4.5% (apixaban), 4.7% (dabigatran), and 7.7% (rivaroxaban) of patients. For all DOACs, our analysis showed an age ≥80 years (p = 0.036), use of apixaban (p = 0.026), DOAC use before hospitalization (p = 0.001), intermediate renal function (p = 0.014), and use of narcotic analgesics (p = 0.019) to be associated with a higher rate of inappropriate prescribing. Undergoing surgery was associated with a lower odds of inappropriate prescribing (p = 0.012). For rivaroxaban, use of medication for hypothyroidism (p = 0.027) and the reduced dose (p < 0.001) were determinants for inappropriate prescribing. Treatment of venous thromboembolism was associated with less errors (p = 0.002). For apixaban, severe renal insufficiency (p < 0.001) and initiation in hospital (p = 0.016) were associated with less and the reduced dose (p < 0.001) with more inappropriate prescribing. No determinants were found in the dabigatran subgroup.Conclusions: Inappropriate DOAC prescribing is frequent with underdosing being the most common drug related problem when using the SmPC as reference. More appropriate prescriptions were found when taking the EHRA guidelines into account. Analysis of determinants of inappropriate prescribing yielded insights in the risk factors associated with inappropriate DOAC prescriptions.