Drug Safety最新文献

With the rapid proliferation of online businesses, national authorities are facing challenges managing the online supply of illegal health products due to the anonymity of the internet, increasing number of global syndicates, new technologies, and inability to enforce against overseas sellers. This paper describes these challenges and the Health Sciences Authority's regulatory approaches to tackle the online sales of illegal health products. These include partnering with platform administrators to remove illegal online postings, leveraging technological tools and relevant legislation, empowering consumers to make informed decisions, and fostering closer collaborations across different jurisdictions to combat online pharmaceutical crimes.

Introduction

The use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors may be associated with an increased risk of gallbladder and bile duct disease among patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We conducted a population-based cohort study using an active comparator, new-user design. We used data from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink to identify patients newly treated with either a DPP-4 inhibitor or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor between January 2013 and December 2020. We fitted Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score fine stratification weighting to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for incident gallbladder and bile duct disease associated with DPP-4 inhibitors compared to SGLT-2 inhibitors.

Results

DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a 46% increased risk of gallbladder and bile duct disease (4.3 vs. 3.0 events per 1000 person-years, HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17–1.83). At 6 months and 1 year, 745 and 948 patients, respectively, would need to be treated with DPP-4 inhibitors for one patient to experience a gallbladder or bile duct disease.

Conclusions

In this population-based cohort study, the use of DPP-4 inhibitors, when compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors, was associated with a moderately increased risk of gallbladder and bile duct disease among patients with type 2 diabetes. This outcome was still quite rare with a high number needed to harm at 6 months and 1 year.

Introduction and objective: Given the high prevalence of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy in France and previous studies suggesting an increased risk of infection in offspring with such exposures, our study aimed to investigate the association between prenatal exposure to systemic antibiotics and serious infections in full-term infants during their first year of life.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study on singleton, full-term liveborn non-immunocompromised infants, using the French National Health Data System (SNDS) between 2012 and 2021. Systemic antibiotic dispensing in ambulatory care settings during pregnancy defined the exposure. Outcomes concerned serious infections (i.e., infections requiring hospitalization) in offspring identified between 3 and 12 months of life, hence excluding infections of maternal origin. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated using logistic regression with multivariate models to control for potential confounders.

Results: Of 2,836,630 infants included, 39.6% were prenatally exposed to systemic antibiotics. Infants prenatally exposed to antibiotics had a higher incidence of serious infections compared with unexposed infants {aOR 1.12 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.11-1.13]}. Similar associations were observed according to the timing of exposure during pregnancy, antibiotic class, and site of infections. The strongest association was observed when infants were prenatally exposed to three or more antibiotic courses during pregnancy [aOR 1.21 (95% CI 1.19-1.24)]. Limitations include residual confounders, such as genetic susceptibility to infections and the role of the underlying pathogen agent.

Conclusion: Prenatal exposure to systemic antibiotics is very common and is associated with a weak yet significant associations with subsequent serious infectious events during the first year of life. While our study revealed associations, it is important to note that causation cannot be established, given the acknowledged limitations, including potential confounding by indication.

Introduction: Bivalent mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines may be simultaneously administered with other recommended vaccines, including seasonal influenza vaccines. However, few studies have evaluated the safety of co-administration of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines.

Objective: The aim was to describe reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after co-administration of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines.

Methods: We searched the VAERS database for reports of adverse events (AEs) following co-administration of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines during the period of September 1, 2022-March 31, 2023. We assessed the characteristics of these reports and described the most frequently reported AEs. Clinicians reviewed available medical records for reports of serious AEs and adverse events of special interest (AESI).

Results: During the period of 1 September 2022 through 31 March 2023, VAERS received 3689 reports of AEs following co-administration of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines. The median age of vaccinees was 59 years (interquartile range 39, 70 years); 342 reports (9.3%) were classified as serious. The most common AEs among non-serious reports were severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection (785, 23.5%), cough (592, 17.7%), and fatigue (568, 17.0%). The most common AEs among serious reports were Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (88, 25.7%), dyspnea (81, 23.7%), and condition aggravated (55, 16.1%).

Discussion: Reports of AEs following co-administration of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines did not reveal any unusual or unexpected patterns of AEs. Increased reporting of certain events (e.g., COVID-19) was expected due to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reporting requirements. CDC and FDA will continue to monitor the safety of co-administration of mRNA COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines.

Introduction: Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is one of the most serious complications in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Although glucocorticoids are increasingly used during PCNL, few studies have been concerned about the association between glucocorticoids and postoperative SIRS. The study aims to explore whether preoperative use of glucocorticoids is associated with SIRS after PCNL.

Methods: A total of 1259 patients who underwent PCNL between January 2015 and April 2021 were enrolled in the retrospective cohort study. Risk factors for post-PCNL SIRS were identified by univariate and multivariate regression analysis. To further explore the association between preoperative administration of glucocorticoids and SIRS, 113 pairs of patients were matched for the confounding factors using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. The odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for the above variables were analyzed.

Results: The incidence of SIRS after PCNL was 9.6 % (121/1259) and the patients who suffered from postoperative SIRS had longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs (all p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that female, preoperative leukocyte count, insertion of central vein catheter, serum albumin, preoperative high-sensitive C-reactive protein/albumin ratio, preoperative transfusion, preoperative administration of glucocorticoids were independent risk factors for SIRS (all p < 0.05). After minimization, the effects of confounding factors by PSM, preoperative administration of glucocorticoids was significantly correlated with SIRS in patients after PCNL (OR=2.44, 95 %CI: 1.31-4.55, p = 0.005).

Conclusion: Preoperative administration of glucocorticoids is an independent risk factor for SIRS in patients undergoing PCNL.

Introduction: While pharmaceutical companies aim to leverage real-world data (RWD) to bridge the gap between clinical drug development and real-world patient outcomes, extant research has mainly focused on the use of social media in a post-approval safety-surveillance setting. Recent regulatory and technological developments indicate that social media may serve as a rich source to expand the evidence base to pre-approval and drug development activities. However, use cases related to drug development have been largely omitted, thereby missing some of the benefits of RWD. In addition, an applied end-to-end understanding of RWD rooted in both industry and regulations is lacking.

Objective: We aimed to investigate how social media can be used as a source of RWD to support regulatory decision making and drug development in the pharmaceutical industry. We aimed to specifically explore the data pipeline and examine how social-media derived RWD can align with regulatory guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration and industry needs.

Methods: A machine learning pipeline was developed to extract patient insights related to anticoagulants from X (Twitter) data. These findings were then analysed from an industry perspective, and complemented by interviews with professionals from a pharmaceutical company.

Results: The analysis reveals several use cases where RWD derived from social media can be beneficial, particularly in generating hypotheses around patient and therapeutic area needs. We also note certain limitations of social media data, particularly around inferring causality.

Conclusions: Social media display considerable potential as a source of RWD for guiding efforts in pharmaceutical drug development and pre-approval settings. Although further regulatory guidance on the use of social media for RWD is needed to encourage its use, regulatory and technological developments are suggested to warrant at least exploratory uses for drug development.

The European Union (EU) regulatory network was at the forefront of the safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. An unprecedented number of case reports of suspected adverse reactions after vaccination called for huge efforts for the assessment of this safety information, to ensure that any possible risks were detected and managed as early as possible, while ruling out coincidental but temporally related adverse health outcomes. We describe the role of the European Medicines Agency alongside the EU regulatory network in the safety monitoring of the COVID-19 vaccines, and provide an insight into challenges, particularities and outcomes of the scientific assessment and regulatory decisions in the complex, dynamic international environment of the pandemic. We discuss the flexible procedural tools that were used to ensure an expedited scientific assessment of safety issues, and subsequent updates of the product information (i.e., labelling) when available evidence (e.g., spontaneous reports, findings from observational studies and/or scientific literature) suggested that causal association is at least a reasonable possibility. The safety monitoring was accompanied by enhanced transparency measures, proactive communication, and easy access to information, which played a key role in public reassurance. The pandemic has been a powerful booster for worldwide collaboration, exchange of information and work-sharing. The safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines continues, and the lessons learned will be applied in future safety reviews, as well as future health emergencies.

Introduction and objective: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) maintains a list of designated medical events (DMEs), events that are inherently serious and are prioritized for signal detection, irrespective of statistical criteria. We have analysed the results of our previously published scoping review to determine whether DME signals differ from those of other adverse events in terms of time to communication and characteristics of supporting reports of suspected adverse drug reactions.

Methods: For all signals, we obtained the launch year of medicinal products from textbooks or regulatory agencies, extracted the year of the first report in VigiBase and calculated the interval between the first report and communication (time to communication, TTC). We further retrieved the average completeness (via vigiGrade) of the reports in each case series in the years before the communication. We categorised as DME signals those concerning an event in the EMA's list. We described the two groups of signals using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) and compared them using the Brunner-Munzel test, calculating 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and P values.

Results: Of 4520 signals, 919 concerned DMEs and 3601 concerned non-DMEs. Signals of DMEs were supported by a median of 15 reports (IQR 6-38 reports) with a completeness score of 0.52 (IQR 0.43-0.62) and signals of non-DMEs by 20 reports (IQR 6-84 reports) with a completeness score of 0.46 (IQR 0.38-0.56). The probability that a random DME signal was supported by fewer reports than non-DME signals was 0.56 (95% CI 0.54-0.58, P < 0.001) and that of one having lower average completeness was 0.39 (95% CI 0.36-0.41, P < 0.001). The median TTCs of DME and non-DME signals did not differ (10 years), but the TTC was as low as 2 years when signals (irrespective of classification) were supported by reports whose average completeness was > 0.80.

Conclusions: Signals of designated medical events were supported by fewer reports and higher completeness scores than signals of other adverse events. Although statistically significant, the differences in effect sizes between the two groups were small. This suggests that listing certain adverse events as DMEs is not having the expected effect of encouraging a focus on reports of the types of suspected adverse reactions that deserve special attention. Further enhancing the completeness of the reports of suspected adverse drug reactions supporting signals of designated medical events might shorten their time to communication and reduce the number of reports required to support them.

Tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, is an immunosuppressant used globally to prevent rejection after organ transplantation. Although it significantly improves outcomes for solid organ transplant patients, it is associated with various side effects such as nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity. Tacrolimus-induced neurotoxicity is frequently encountered in clinical practice and can present with a variety of symptoms that may occur even at therapeutic levels. Although tacrolimus-induced neurotoxicity is well documented, there is limited literature available on pharmacologic management. Twenty-eight case reports of tacrolimus-induced neurotoxicity were identified and analyzed in addition to other literature including reviews, retrospective studies, and animal model studies. The severity of cases of tacrolimus-induced neurotoxicity reported ranged from mild symptoms that could be managed with symptomatic treatment to conditions such as posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy that may require more immediate intervention. This information was utilized in addition to clinical experience to compile potential management options for prevention and treatment of neurotoxic adverse events. This review is limited by the utilization of primarily retrospective studies and case reports. The available literature on the subject is largely narrative and there are no guidelines on treatment of tacrolimus-induced neurotoxicity at the time of this research. This comprehensive review may guide further studies to investigate the pathophysiology of tacrolimus-induced neurotoxicity and to define patient-specific strategies for mitigation or minimization of neurotoxicity. This is especially important given that management of tacrolimus-induced neurotoxicity can include changes to immunosuppression that can result in an increased risk of rejection.