Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety最新文献

Purpose: This study examined the prevalence of headache medicine use among Danish adolescents and explores the link between mental health, frequent headaches, and medicine use for headache. We hypothesized that poor mental health increases headache occurrence, leading to greater medicine use.

Methods: The 2022 Danish Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study surveyed 5292 students aged 11, 13, and 15. Self-reported data included headache frequency, medicine use for headache, and five mental health indicators: life satisfaction, emotional symptoms, loneliness, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. Multivariate logistic regression analyses assessed the association between mental health indicators and headache medicine use, adjusting for headache frequency.

Results: Weekly headaches were reported by 33.1%, and 43.6% used headache medicine in the past month. Poor mental health correlated with higher headache and medicine use rates. Analyses adjusted for sex, age group, and occupational social class found significantly increased odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for medicine use for headache among students with low life satisfaction (2.27; 1.88-2.75), among students with 2+ emotional symptoms (2.28; 1.92-2.69), students who often felt lonely (2.08; 1.69-2.55), students with low self-efficacy (1.37; 1.16-1.61) and students with low self-esteem (1.59; 1.36-1.85). When accounting for headache frequency, the association between poor mental health and medicine use diminished and became nonsignificant.

Conclusions: Poor mental health was linked to increased medicine use for headache. The findings suggest that frequent headaches may explain the association between poor mental health and the use of headache medicine. Promoting rational medicine use and enhancing mental health among adolescents is essential.

Background and objectives: This investigation leverages data derived from the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting (FAERS) to real-world adverse reactions associated with Belimumab, with the intention of providing guidance for safe clinical pharmacotherapy.

Methods: Data encompassing adverse drug event (ADE) reports relating to Belimumab from Q1 2011 to Q4 2023 within the FAERS were extracted and analyzed using methodologies such as the reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Multi-item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS).

Results: The study identified a total of 19 825 ADE reports where Belimumab was the primary suspect medication, with the United States constituting the majority of reporting countries (16 312 cases, or 82.28%). Patients aged 18 to 64.9 years accounted for the largest demographic (36.29%), while the proportion of female patients (77.91%) significantly surpassed that of male patients (5.03%). The analysis uncovered 184 unique Preferred Terms (PTs) across 21 System Organ Classes (SOCs). Following selection through ROR, the SOC signal strength was prioritized as follows: Systemic disorders and administration site conditions, infections and infestations, a variety of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, and conditions related to pregnancy, puerperium, and the perinatal period. The top five PTs for ADE reports not included in the product's labeling were hypersensitivity reactions, immunosuppression, non-vascular diseases, herpes virus infections, and Sjögren's syndrome. The top five PTs for ADE signal strength not included in the labeling were disseminated cutaneous herpes zoster, herpes zoster meningitis, onycholysis, cyclothymic disorder, and mixed connective tissue disease.

Discussion: Based on pharmacovigilance research utilizing the FAERS database, it is recommended that clinical monitoring of Bevacizumab should be intensified to support effective pharmaceutical care and ensure rational clinical medication use.

Purpose: While potential harm from high doses of systemic dexamethasone for clinical management of COVID-19 is an important concern, little is known about real world dexamethasone dosing in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States.

Methods: Descriptive study to assess dexamethasone daily dose in adults with COVID-19 in a large US hospital network, overall and by respiratory support requirements, extracted using semi- structured nursing notes.

Results: Of 332 430 hospitalizations with a COVID-19 diagnosis, 201 637 (60.7%) hospitalizations included dexamethasone administration. The mean age of recipients was 63 years, 53.0% were male, and 64.5% White. Median time from admission to dexamethasone administration was 0 day (interquartile range [IQR], 0-1 days) and median duration of use was 5 (IQR, 3-9) days. Almost 80% of hospitalizations received standard daily doses (≤ 6 mg daily), 12.7% moderately high daily doses (> 6- ≤ 10 mg daily), and 8.1% high (> 10- ≤ 20 mg daily) or very high daily dose (> 20 mg daily). Over 20% of COVID-19 hospitalizations requiring no oxygen or simple oxygen received high doses of systemic dexamethasone.

Conclusions: Given the findings from the UK RECOVERY trial, and the general uncertainty around safety of higher dexamethasone doses in those requiring more intense respiratory support, standard daily dexamethasone doses of 6 mg or less for hospitalized COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen are recommended.

Purpose: Galcanezumab is a calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody indicated for migraine prevention in adults. Due to the long half-life of galcanezumab and the prevalence of migraine in women of childbearing age, galcanezumab exposure may occur during pregnancy. However, real-world use and safety of galcanezumab during pregnancy has not been fully described. To help fill this gap, galcanezumab has two ongoing pregnancy safety studies, one of which is an insurance claims database study.

Methods: This database study is actively identifying and following pregnancies exposed to galcanezumab using commercial claims from the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD). Patient accrual is planned from September 2018 to June 2026, with a final study report planned for December 2027. This study requires 430 galcanezumab-exposed pregnancies with linked infants to reach power for comparative analysis of major congenital malformations.

Results: Recent monitoring of patient accrual, including data from 28 September 2018 to 31 January 2023, identified 207 galcanezumab-exposed pregnancies in women with migraine in the HIRD, of which 110 were live births and 73 of which were linked to an infant. This represents an annual accrual rate of approximately 17 pregnancies linked to infants, which is substantially lower than the 55 required annually to reach target size within current regulatory-committed study timelines.

Conclusions: The accrual of a sufficient number of galcanezumab-exposed pregnancies represents a substantial, but not uncommon, barrier to conducting comparative analyses in pregnancy studies. Potential solutions that would allow for timely dissemination of important safety information to patients and providers may be available.

Purpose: Japanese traditional (Kampo) medicines are often used for pregnant women in Japan. However, no comprehensive studies have been conducted regarding the self-reported use of these medicines during pregnancy. This study investigated the use of Kampo medicines during pregnancy in Japan using the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project Birth and Three-Generation Cohort Study (TMM BirThree Cohort Study).

Methods: Questionnaires were distributed to pregnant women participating in the TMM BirThree Cohort Study (July 2013 to March 2017) at approximately 12 weeks (early pregnancy) and 26 weeks (middle pregnancy). We analysed Kampo medicines use over three periods: (1) 12 months before pregnancy diagnosis, (2) the period between pregnancy diagnosis and around Week 12 of pregnancy and (3) from around Week 12 of pregnancy.

Results: In total, 19 220 women were included in the analysis. The proportions using prescribed Kampo medicines were 4.1% before pregnancy diagnosis, 4.5% from diagnosis to Week 12% and 4.5% after Week 12 of pregnancy. The most frequently prescribed Kampo medicines were tokishakuyakusan (1.0%) before pregnancy diagnosis, shoseiryuto (1.3%) from diagnosis to Week 12 and shoseiryuto (1.5%) Post-week 12. Sixty of the pregnant women used Kampo medicines containing crude drugs, which should be administered cautiously during pregnancy.

Conclusion: The proportion of Kampo medicines use before and during pregnancy was 4%-5%. Some pregnant women used Kampo medicines containing crude drugs that should be administered cautiously during pregnancy. Further research is required to determine the safety of Kampo medicines during pregnancy.

Purpose: The evidence of the neuropsychiatric effects associated with fluoroquinolones is mainly supported by case reports. Population-based evidence remains largely limited. We aimed to investigate the association between the use of fluoroquinolones and hospitalization or Accident & Emergency department visits for acute neuropsychiatric events using a self-controlled case series (SCCS) and active comparator to reduce confounding.

Methods: We conducted a SCCS with a recently described active comparator design using all public outpatient clinics, hospitalization, and Accident and Emergency department records from the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System, Hong Kong from 2001 to 2013. Among 166 325 people with an oral fluoroquinolone prescription, 4287 people who had an incident neuropsychiatric event were included. We then estimated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of acute neuropsychiatric events during periods before and after fluoroquinolone prescription, versus baseline. We repeated the analysis for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid users as an active comparator. We then estimated the comparator-adjusted estimates by dividing the IRR for fluoroquinolone by the IRR for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. The primary outcome was neuropsychiatric events. Secondary outcomes were psychotic events and cognitive impairment.

Results: An increased risk of neuropsychiatric events was observed in the current use of fluoroquinolone [IRR: 2.11 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.58-2.83)] and 1-7 days after the end of fluoroquinolone prescription [IRR: 1.90 (95% CI: 1.30-2.75)] versus baseline. No increased risk was observed in other risk periods versus baseline. Similar patterns were observed in the current use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid [IRR: 1.92 (95% CI: 1.19-3.11)] and 1-7 days after the end of fluoroquinolone prescription [IRR: 1.81 (95% CI: 1.11-2.97)] versus baseline. Similar results were found for secondary outcomes. Using the active comparator design, comparator-adjusted estimates were 1.10 (95% CI: 0.63-1.93) in current use of fluoroquinolones and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.57-1.95) in 1-7 days postexposure to fluoroquinolones versus baseline.

Conclusions: Although our study showed a higher incidence of neuropsychiatric events in the current use of fluoroquinolones and 7 days after the end of fluoroquinolones prescriptions compared with baseline, a similar temporal pattern was also found for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid users. Using amoxicillin/clavulanic acid as the active comparator, we found no difference in the risk of neuropsychiatric events associated with fluoroquinolone compared with baseline. Therefore, the risk of neuropsychiatric events may not need to influence the decision to prescribe either fluoroquinolones or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid based on the evidence in this study.

Pharmacoepidemiological studies provide important information on the safety and effectiveness of medications, but the validity of study findings can be threatened by residual bias. Ideally, biases would be minimized through appropriate study design and statistical analysis methods. However, residual biases can remain, for example, due to unmeasured confounders, measurement error, or selection into the study. A group of sensitivity analysis methods, termed quantitative bias analyses, are available to assess, quantitatively and transparently, the robustness of study results to these residual biases. These approaches include methods to quantify how the estimated effect would be altered under specified assumptions about the potential bias, and methods to calculate bounds on effect estimates. This article introduces quantitative bias analyses for unmeasured confounding, misclassification, and selection bias, with a focus on their relevance and application to pharmacoepidemiological studies.

Purpose: We compared performance of the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) with multidisciplinary expert panel review in identifying a drug-induced liver injury (DILI) due to antituberculosis therapy (ATT) and/or antiretroviral therapy (ART).

Methods: Cases were drawn from a prospective registry of hospitalised adults with suspected DILI due to ATT and/or ART in Cape Town, South Africa. Participants had to fulfil American Thoracic Society criteria for ATT interruption (alanine transaminase [ALT] ≥5 times upper limit of normal [ULN]/ALT ≥3 times [ULN] and symptomatic). Causality assessment by expert panel review served as reference standard. The panel ranked potentially implicated drugs as certain, probable, possible or unlikely causes guided by World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria. The RUCAM was performed for each potentially implicated drug. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of the RUCAM in identifying a probable/certain drug cause for liver injury.

Results: We included 48 participants. All were people with HIV (PWH). Twenty-seven were on concomitant ART and ATT, with a median of six potentially hepatotoxic drugs per case. Sensitivity and specificity of the RUCAM in identifying a probable/certain drug cause of liver injury compared with expert panel review was 7% and 100% respectively. Implicated drugs (times ranked probable/certain by panel) were isoniazid (18/0), pyrazinamide (17/0), rifampicin (15/1), efavirenz (6/4) and lopinavir/ritonavir (1/0).

Conclusions: PWH with liver injury received multiple potentially implicated drugs, which may increase liver injury risk and complicate causality assessment. Compared with expert panel review, the RUCAM had low sensitivity in detecting probable or certain drug causes of liver injury.