Search

Background: Risk minimization measures (RMMs) are interventions intended to mitigate or prevent the occurrence of adverse reactions associated with medications. Having consistent measures across regulatory bodies (i.e., the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)) benefits medication use and safety and ultimately the patient. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether there is variability in these published RMMs between the three regulatory bodies. Methods: A specific data collection form was created to extract information from the SFDA’s RMM list, US FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) list, and EMA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) list, as of February 2022 all RMMs that were available on the websites were reviewed. Medications with the same trade name were matched across regulators, and unmatched medications were checked for approval status. For medication groups such as NSAIDs in the SFDA’s RMM list, they were matched by searching for the groups individually in the regulatory websites. All risks and types of minimizing measures were compared. Results: A total of 317 medications were retrieved from the SFDA’s RMM list. The majority of medication classes were immunosuppressants (n = 60), antihypertensive (n = 33), and oncology medication (n = 29). There were only 62 medications with REMS from the US FDA website, a total of 14 medications were approved by the SFDA, and only nine medications were matched with the SFDA’s RMM list. Also, there were 828 medications with RMP from the EMA website, a total of 334 has RMM, 128 are approved by the SFDA, and 71 matched with the SFDA’s RMM list. Furthermore, seven medications were matched between SFDA, US FDA and EMA. After content review, four medications had similar risks and measures across the regulators and three medications had different risks and measures across the regulators. For the medication groups, a total of 36 groups were in the SFDA’s list, 18 groups were matched with the US FDA, and 14 were matched with the EMA. Conclusions: Our study showed substantial differences among the regulatory authorities regarding RMMs. Harmony in published risk measures can have a significant impact on medication safety.

Summary: Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.

Background: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. Results: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. Conclusion: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

Objective: To identify factors associated with glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in tertiary academic hospital. Research design and methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Data were extracted from the electronic health record (EHR) database for the period from 1st of January to 31st of December 2016. Participants were considered to have a glucose control if the HbA1c level was less than 7% [53 mmol/L]. Descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression model were performed to assess the factors associated with glycemic control. Results: A total of 728 patients were included in the study for which (65%) were female, and about 60% of the sample size was between 45 and 60 years old. Multivariate logistic regression model showed participants older than the age of 65 were less likely to have controlled diabetes compared to the younger participants (OR: 0.53 [CI: 0.30–0.93]). Moreover, those who had hypertension (OR: 0.61 [CI: 0.43–0.86]) and dyslipidemia (OR: 0.53 [CI: 0.38–0.74]) were less likely to have controlled diabetes, while those with asthma (OR: 2.06 [CI: 1.16–3.68]) were more likely to have controlled diabetes. The model also showed that vitamin D deficiency was not associated with glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients (OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.58–1.12]). Conclusion: These findings highlighted the need for appropriate management in older adult patients to prevent the complication of type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, attention should be exercised for patients with factors associated with poor glycemic control such as hypertension and dyslipidemia. Keywords: Saudi Arabia, Type 2 diabetes, Factors