Drug Safety最新文献

Statins represent the primary therapy for combatting hypercholesterolemia and reducing mortality from cardiovascular events. Despite their pleiotropic effects in lowering cholesterol synthesis, circulating cholesterol, as well as reducing the risk of other systemic diseases, statins have adverse events in a small, but significant, population of treated patients. The most prominent of these adverse effects is statin-induced myopathy, which lacks precise definition but is characterised by elevations in the muscle enzyme creatine kinase alongside musculoskeletal complaints, including pain, weakness and fatigue. The exact aetiology of statin-induced myopathy remains to be elucidated, although impaired mitochondrial function is thought to be an important underlying cause. This may result from or be the consequence of several factors including statin-induced inhibition of coenzyme Q₁₀ (CoQ₁₀) biosynthesis, impaired Ca²⁺ signalling and modified reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. The purpose of this review article is to provide an update on the information available linking statin therapy with mitochondrial dysfunction and to outline any mechanistic insights, which may be beneficial in the future treatment of myopathic adverse events.

Introduction: The Reporting recommendations Intended for pharmaceutical risk Minimization Evaluation Studies (RIMES) was developed to improve the quality of reporting of risk minimization program evaluations. In light of continued inadequacies in study reporting, and high-profile program implementation failures, we updated the RIMES Checklist to incorporate additional concepts from the Standards for Reporting of Implementation studies (StaRI).

Methods: The development of the updated checklist, the RIMES-StaRI Extension (RIMES-SE), entailed developing a study protocol and drafting an initial pool of items based on a mapping of the RIMES against the StaRI checklist. A modified e-Delphi exercise was then conducted to determine the importance and understandability of items for checklist inclusion. An expert workshop and an online commentary period for additional feedback followed.

Results: The RIMES-SE contains 27 items. It includes two signature features of the StaRI Checklist: 1) a dual strand of items (represented in two columns) describing the risk minimization program (the 'intervention') and the corresponding implementation strategy; and 2) applicable to an array of different research methodologies.

Conclusions: The RIMES-SE Statement and Checklist extends the reporting guidelines set forth in the original RIMES Checklist via inclusion of key implementation science concepts. It is intended to improve the quality and transparency of reporting of risk minimization evaluation studies so as to advance drug safety science.

Rare diseases have become an increasingly important public health priority due to their collective prevalence and often life-threatening nature. Incentive programs, such as the Orphan Drug Act have been introduced to increase the development of rare disease therapeutics. While the approval of these therapeutics requires supportive data from stringent pre-market studies, these data lack the ability to describe the causes of treatment response heterogeneity, leading to medications often being more harmful or less effective than predicted. If a Goal Line were to be used to describe the multifactorial continuum of phenotypic variations occurring in response to a medication, the 'Goal Posts', or the two defining points of this continuum, would be (1) Super-Response, or an extraordinary therapeutic effect; and (2) Serious Harm. Investigation of the pharmacogenomics behind these two extreme phenotypes can potentially lead to the development of new therapeutics, help inform rational use criteria in drug policy, and improve the understanding of underlying disease pathophysiology. In the context of rare diseases where cohort sizes are smaller than ideal, 'small data' and 'big data' approaches to data collection and analysis should be combined to produce the most robust results. This paper presents the importance of studying drug response in parallel to other research initiatives in rare diseases, as well as the need for international collaboration in the area of rare disease pharmacogenomics.

Background and aim: Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts.

Methods: We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting.

Results: Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts.

Conclusions: The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.

Medical science has often used adult males as the standard to establish pathological conditions, their transitions, diagnostic methods, and treatment methods. However, it has recently become clear that sex differences exist in how risk factors contribute to the same disease, and these differences also exist in the efficacy of the same drug. Furthermore, the elderly and children have lower metabolic functions than adult males, and the results of clinical trials on adult males cannot be directly applied to these patients. Spontaneous reporting systems have become an important source of information for safety assessment, thereby reflecting drugs' actual use in specific populations and clinical settings. However, spontaneous reporting systems only register drug-related adverse events (AEs); thus, they cannot accurately capture the total number of patients using these drugs. Therefore, although various algorithms have been developed to exploit disproportionality and search for AE signals, there is no systematic literature on how to detect AE signals specific to the elderly and children or sex-specific signals. This review describes signal detection using data mining, considering traditional methods and the latest knowledge, and their limitations.

In pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses based on individual case safety reports are widely used to detect safety signals. Unfortunately, publishing disproportionality analyses lacks specific guidelines, often leading to incomplete and ambiguous reporting, and carries the risk of incorrect conclusions when data are not placed in the correct context. The REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV) statement was developed to address this issue by promoting transparent and comprehensive reporting of disproportionality studies. While the statement paper explains in greater detail the procedure followed to develop these guidelines, with this explanation paper we present the 14 items retained for READUS-PV guidelines, together with an in-depth explanation of their rationale and bullet points to illustrate their practical implementation. Our primary objective is to foster the adoption of the READUS-PV guidelines among authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers of disproportionality analyses. Enhancing transparency, completeness, and accuracy of reporting, as well as proper interpretation of their results, READUS-PV guidelines will ultimately facilitate evidence-based decision making in pharmacovigilance.

Introduction: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) have potential to cause patient harm, including lowering therapeutic efficacy. This study aimed to (i) determine the prevalence of potential DDIs (pDDIs); clinically relevant DDIs (cDDIs), that is, DDIs that could lead to patient harm, taking into account a patient's individual clinical profile, drug effects and severity of potential harmful outcome; and subsequent actual harm among hospitalized patients and (ii) examine the impact of transitioning from paper-based medication charts to electronic medication management (eMM) on DDIs and patient harms.

Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the control arm of a controlled pre-post study. Patients were randomly selected from three Australian hospitals. Retrospective chart review was conducted before and after the implementation of an eMM system, without accompanying clinical decision support alerts for DDIs. Harm was assessed by an expert panel.

Results: Of 1186 patient admissions, 70.1% (n = 831) experienced a pDDI, 42.6% (n = 505) a cDDI and 0.9% (n = 11) an actual harm in hospital. Of 15,860 pDDIs identified, 27.0% (n = 4285) were classified as cDDIs. The median number of pDDIs and cDDIs per 10 drugs were 6 [interquartile range (IQR) 2-13] and 0 (IQR 0-2), respectively. In cases where a cDDI was identified, both drugs were 44% less likely to be co-administered following eMM (adjusted odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.73).

Conclusion: Although most patients experienced a pDDI during their hospital stay, less than one-third of pDDIs were clinically relevant. The low prevalence of harm identified raises questions about the value of incorporating DDI decision support into systems given the potential negative impacts of DDI alerts.