Adverse events with risankizumab in the real world: postmarketing pharmacovigilance assessment of the FDA adverse event reporting system.

Background: Risankizumab, a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits IL-23, is currently approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and Crohn's disease. The real-world safety study of risankizumab in a large- sample population is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate risankizumab-associated adverse events (AEs) and characterize the clinical priority through the data mining of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: Disproportionality analyses were performed by calculating the reporting odds ratios (RORs), deemed significant when the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than 1, to quantify the signals of risankizumab-related AEs from the second quarter (Q2) of 2019 to 2022 Q3. Serious and non-serious cases were compared, and signals were prioritized using a rating scale. Results: Risankizumab was recorded in 10,235 reports, with 161 AEs associated with significant disproportionality. Of note, 37 PTs in at least 30 cases were classified as unexpected AEs, which were uncovered in the drug label, such as myocardial infarction, cataract, pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus, stress, and nephrolithiasis. 74.68%, 25.32%, and 0% PTs were graded as weak, moderate, and strong clinical priorities, respectively. A total of 48 risankizumab-related AEs such as pneumonia, cerebrovascular accident, cataract, loss of consciousness, cardiac disorder, hepatic cirrhosis, and thrombosis, were more likely to be reported as serious AEs. The median TTO of moderate and weak signals related to risankizumab was 115 (IQR 16.75-305) and 124 (IQR 29-301) days, respectively. All of the disproportionality signals had early failure type features, indicating that risankizumab-associated AEs gradually decreased over time. Conclusion: Our study found potential new AE signals and provided valuable evidence for clinicians to mitigate the risk of risankizumab-associated AEs based on an extensive analysis of a large-scale postmarketing international safety database.

The Evolving Profile of Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Liver Injury.

Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is an infrequent but important cause of liver disease. Newly identified causes of DILI include the COVID vaccines, turmeric, green tea extract, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. DILI is largely a clinical diagnosis of exclusion that requires evaluation for more common causes of liver injury and a compatible temporal association with the suspect drug. Recent progress in DILI causality assessment includes the development of the semi-automated revised electronic causality assessment method (RECAM) instrument. In addition, several drug-specific HLA associations have been identified that can help with the confirmation or exclusion of DILI in individual patients. Various prognostic models can help identify the 5%-10% of patients at highest risk of death. Following suspect drug cessation, 80% of patients with DILI fully recover, whereas 10%-15% have persistently abnormal laboratory studies at 6 months of follow-up. Hospitalized patients with DILI with an elevated international normalized ratio or mental status changes should be considered for N-acetylcysteine therapy and urgent liver transplant evaluation. Selected patients with moderate to severe drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms or autoimmune features on liver biopsy may benefit from short-term corticosteroids. However, prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal patients and dose and duration of steroids to use. LiverTox is a comprehensive, freely accessible Web site with important information regarding the hepatotoxicity profile of more than 1000 approved medications and 60 herbal and dietary supplement products. It is hoped that ongoing "omics" studies will lead to additional insight into DILI pathogenesis, improved diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, and mechanism-based treatments.

Validation of Artificial Intelligence to Support the Automatic Coding of Patient Adverse Drug Reaction Reports, Using Nationwide Pharmacovigilance Data.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse drug reaction reports are usually manually assessed by pharmacovigilance experts to detect safety signals associated with drugs. With the recent extension of reporting to patients and the emergence of mass media-related sanitary crises, adverse drug reaction reports currently frequently overwhelm pharmacovigilance networks. Artificial intelligence could help support the work of pharmacovigilance experts during such crises, by automatically coding reports, allowing them to prioritise or accelerate their manual assessment. After a previous study showing first results, we developed and compared state-of-the-art machine learning models using a larger nationwide dataset, aiming to automatically pre-code patients' adverse drug reaction reports. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the best artificial intelligence model identifying adverse drug reactions and assessing seriousness in patients reports from the French national pharmacovigilance web portal. METHODS: Reports coded by 27 Pharmacovigilance Centres between March 2017 and December 2020 were selected (n = 11,633). For each report, the Portable Document Format form containing free-text information filled by the patient, and the corresponding encodings of adverse event symptoms (in Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms) and seriousness were obtained. This encoding by experts was used as the reference to train and evaluate models, which contained input data processing and machine-learning natural language processing to learn and predict encodings. We developed and compared different approaches for data processing and classifiers. Performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC), F-measure, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. We used data from 26 Pharmacovigilance Centres for training and internal validation. External validation was performed using data from the remaining Pharmacovigilance Centres during the same period. RESULTS: Internal validation: for adverse drug reaction identification, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) + Light Gradient Boosted Machine (LGBM) achieved an AUC of 0.97 and an F-measure of 0.80. The Cross-lingual Language Model (XLM) [transformer] obtained an AUC of 0.97 and an F-measure of 0.78. For seriousness assessment, FastText + LGBM achieved an AUC of 0.85 and an F-measure of 0.63. CamemBERT (transformer) + Light Gradient Boosted Machine obtained an AUC of 0.84 and an F-measure of 0.63. External validation for both adverse drug reaction identification and seriousness assessment tasks yielded consistent and robust results. CONCLUSIONS: Our artificial intelligence models showed promising performance to automatically code patient adverse drug reaction reports, with very similar results across approaches. Our system has been deployed by national health authorities in France since January 2021 to facilitate pharmacovigilance of COVID-19 vaccines. Further studies will be needed to validate the performance of the tool in real-life settings.

Hydroxychloroquine: Adverse Drug Reaction Profile of an Old Drug in a New Situation.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been extensively used during the COVID-19 pandemic both as a therapeutic and prophylactic drug. HCQ is generally well tolerated; however, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in COVID-19 need further exploration. In this study, we have determined the type and pattern of ADRs of HCQ as a prophylactic and therapeutic drug in COVID-19. METHODS: All spontaneous suspected ADR reports due to HCQ in COVID-19 patients submitted to the ADR monitoring of a tertiary care hospital were included. Additionally, a survey was designed for active surveillance of ADRs among healthcare professionals (HCPs) who were on prophylaxis with HCQ. The ADRs were analyzed to determine severity, causality, and preventability using the Hartwig Scale, World Health Organisation-Uppasala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) scale, and modified Schumock and Thornton criterion respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-four ADR reports were received from COVID-19 patients. A total of 78 ADRs were reported by 49 HCPs who were on HCQ prophylaxis. The majority of the patients had ADRs related to skin and soft tissues (37.5%), whereas the HCPs on prophylaxis mostly had gastrointestinal complaints (42.3%). ADRs observed in HCPs on prophylaxis were mild, not requiring any intervention. However, 50% of ADRs in patients were of "moderate" category. CONCLUSION: Undiscerning and unsupervised use of HCQ can expose the general population as well as patients to serious adverse drug effects. Utmost care is necessary before using HCQ prophylactically or for treatment in COVID-19.

UVEITIS AFTER THE BNT162b2 mRNA VACCINATION AGAINST SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION: A Possible Association.

PURPOSE: To describe uveitis cases after the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective study. Vaccine-related uveitis diagnosis was supported by the classification of the World Health Organization Adverse Drug Terminology and the Naranjo criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (23 eyes) with a mean age of 51.3 years (23-78 years) were included. Eight of the 21 patients had a known history of uveitis. The median time from previous to current attack was 1 year (0.5-15 years). There were 21 anterior uveitis cases, two with bilateral inflammation. Eight cases occurred after the first vaccination and 13 after the second vaccination. All but three presented as mild to moderate disease. Two patients developed multiple evanescent white dot syndrome after the second vaccination. The mean time from vaccination to uveitis onset was 7.5 ± 7.3 days (1-30 days). At final follow-up, complete resolution was achieved in all but two eyes, which showed significant improvement. One case of severe anterior uveitis developed vitritis and macular edema after the second vaccination, which completely resolved after an intravitreal dexamethasone injection. CONCLUSION: Uveitis may develop after the administration of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. The most common complication was mild to moderate anterior uveitis, while multiple evanescent white dot syndrome can also occur less frequently.

Assessment of Allergic and Anaphylactic Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines With Confirmatory Testing in a US Regional Health System.

Importance: As of May 2021, more than 32 million cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in the United States, resulting in more than 615 000 deaths. Anaphylactic reactions associated with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been reported. Objective: To characterize the immunologic mechanisms underlying allergic reactions to these vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case series included 22 patients with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines between December 18, 2020, and January 27, 2021, at a large regional health care network. Participants were individuals who received at least 1 of the following International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision anaphylaxis codes: T78.2XXA, T80.52XA, T78.2XXD, or E949.9, with documentation of COVID-19 vaccination. Suspected allergy cases were identified and invited for follow-up allergy testing. Exposures: FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Allergic reactions were graded using standard definitions, including Brighton criteria. Skin prick testing was conducted to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate 80 (P80). Histamine (1 mg/mL) and filtered saline (negative control) were used for internal validation. Basophil activation testing after stimulation for 30 minutes at 37 °C was also conducted. Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgE antibodies to PEG were obtained to determine possible mechanisms. Results: Of 22 patients (20 [91%] women; mean [SD] age, 40.9 [10.3] years; 15 [68%] with clinical allergy history), 17 (77%) met Brighton anaphylaxis criteria. All reactions fully resolved. Of patients who underwent skin prick tests, 0 of 11 tested positive to PEG, 0 of 11 tested positive to P80, and 1 of 10 (10%) tested positive to the same brand of mRNA vaccine used to vaccinate that individual. Among these same participants, 10 of 11 (91%) had positive basophil activation test results to PEG and 11 of 11 (100%) had positive basophil activation test results to their administered mRNA vaccine. No PEG IgE was detected; instead, PEG IgG was found in tested individuals who had an allergy to the vaccine. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on this case series, women and those with a history of allergic reactions appear at have an elevated risk of mRNA vaccine allergy. Immunological testing suggests non-IgE-mediated immune responses to PEG may be responsible in most individuals.

Assessment of adverse events associated with remdesivir use for coronavirus disease 2019 using real-world data.

Background: Remdesivir has been used for treating patients with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) although there is conflicting evidence regarding its usefulness. Data regarding its safety largely come from the clinical trials conducted to support its emergency use authorization (EUA). This study aimed to identify the adverse events of remdesivir with disproportionately high reporting using real-world data.Research design and methods: The adverse event reports submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) by health-care professionals for drugs that have received EUA or approved for the treatment of COVID-19 in the US were studied. Adisproportionality analysis was performed to determine adverse events more frequently reported with remdesivir compared with other COVID-19 drugs in the database.Results: Elevated liver enzymes, acute kidney injury, raised blood creatinine levels, bradycardia, cardiac arrest, and death had disproportionately higher reporting with remdesivir as asuspect drug compared with other drugs. There is no significant difference in the reporting of these events based on patient sex or age.Conclusions: Our study confirms the drug label information regarding liver enzyme elevation. The renal and cardiac safety signals identified necessitate reevaluation for potential drug-labeling changes.

Real time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy for cancer: European multicentre randomised controlled trial (eSMART).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of remote monitoring of adjuvant chemotherapy related side effects via the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) on symptom burden, quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-efficacy, and work limitations. DESIGN: Multicentre, repeated measures, parallel group, evaluator masked, stratified randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twelve cancer centres in Austria, Greece, Norway, Republic of Ireland, and UK. PARTICIPANTS: 829 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's disease, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving first line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in five years. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to ASyMS (intervention; n=415) or standard care (control; n=414) over six cycles of chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was symptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale; MSAS). Secondary outcomes were health related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G), Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Revised (STAI-R), Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-Cancer), and work limitations questionnaire (WLQ). RESULTS: For the intervention group, symptom burden remained at pre-chemotherapy treatment levels, whereas controls reported an increase from cycle 1 onwards (least squares absolute mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.19 to -0.12; P<0.001; Cohen's D effect size=0.5). Analysis of MSAS sub-domains indicated significant reductions in favour of ASyMS for global distress index (-0.21, -0.27 to -0.16; P<0.001), psychological symptoms (-0.16, -0.23 to -0.10; P<0.001), and physical symptoms (-0.21, -0.26 to -0.17; P<0.001). FACT-G scores were higher in the intervention group across all cycles (mean difference 4.06, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 5.46; P<0.001), whereas mean scores for STAI-R trait (-1.15, -1.90 to -0.41; P=0.003) and STAI-R state anxiety (-1.13, -2.06 to -0.20; P=0.02) were lower. CASE-Cancer scores were higher in the intervention group (mean difference 0.81, 0.19 to 1.43; P=0.01), and most SCNS-SF34 domains were lower, including sexuality needs (-1.56, -3.11 to -0.01; P<0.05), patient care and support needs (-1.74, -3.31 to -0.16; P=0.03), and physical and daily living needs (-2.8, -5.0 to -0.6; P=0.01). Other SCNS-SF34 domains and WLQ were not significantly different. Safety of ASyMS was satisfactory. Neutropenic events were higher in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reduction in symptom burden supports the use of ASyMS for remote symptom monitoring in cancer care. A "medium" Cohen's effect size of 0.5 showed a sizable, positive clinical effect of ASyMS on patients' symptom experiences. Remote monitoring systems will be vital for future services, particularly with blended models of care delivery arising from the covid-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02356081.

Consensus disease definitions for neurologic immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Side effects after COVID-19 vaccinations among residents of Poland.

OBJECTIVE: Side effects of vaccines are common, but people react differently to different vaccines. Manufacturers provide lists of the side effects of their products. Adverse reactions are proof of the effectiveness of vaccines and that the immune system is responding. In this study, we compare the side effects of the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines. Our survey results show that the side effects of the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine are more common than after the first and second doses of the Pfizer vaccine. Most respondents in our survey reported at least one side-effect after the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccine, but these reactions were less common after the Pfizer preparation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A survey was distributed via the internet. It was conducted among people vaccinated with Pfizer or AstraZeneca. The respondents were asked about the side effects after the first and second doses of the vaccines, such as injection site pain, arm pain, muscle pain, headache, fever, chills, and fatigue. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 705 people. 196 of them had been vaccinated with Pfizer and 509 with AstraZeneca. Among those vaccinated with the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 96.5% reported at least one post-vaccination reaction. 17.1% of respondents reported all the side effects listed in the survey. Among those vaccinated with the first Pfizer dose, vaccine reactions were reported by 93.9% of respondents; 2% of respondents experienced all the side effects mentioned in the survey. The second dose of the Pfizer vaccine caused post-vaccinal reactions in most of the subjects: 54.8% of respondents had more adverse reactions, and 15.8% had fewer adverse reactions than after the first dose of this vaccine; 29.4% experienced the same side effects after the first and second doses of the Pfizer vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Side effects as a result of vaccination are not rare and are proof that the immune system is responding. However, severe adverse reactions to vaccines can be dangerous, and they engender fear. Concerns about the side effects and complications of COVID-19 vaccines may eclipse opinions regarding their benefits. This study shows that the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine causes side effects more often than either dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Raising awareness about the unintended consequences of hand sanitiser in children.

The use of hand sanitisers is common practice to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the safety thereof requires consideration as this may be hazardous in children. Recent studies have shown that the misuse and increased unsupervised availability of alcohol-based hand sanitisers may result in adverse events in children such as skin irritation, dryness, cracking and peeling. Unintentional or intentional ingestion of hand sanitisers in children under the age of 12 years may occur because of the colour, smell and flavour added to it. Consumption of alcohol in children may result in hypoglycaemia, apnoea and acidosis. This allows the invasion of other bacterial and viral infections. Children may also rub their eyes with sanitised hands and cause ocular injury. Therefore, the use of hand sanitisers in general needs to be revised in both children and adults. Other interventions on lowering the risk of adverse events because of misuse of hand sanitiser should be practised more often. These include promoting washing of hands over sanitisers where possible, training children on how to use hand sanitisers and creating awareness of the dangers if ingested or in contact with the eyes.

Reported adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination at a tertiary care hospital, focus on cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST).

Objectives: Several cases of unusual thrombotic events with thrombocytopenia were reported in several countries, in association with AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine. The European medicines agency conducted a detailed review and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest an association of thrombotic events with the use of COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca.Methods: King Abdulaziz Medical City is a 1500 bed tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; this study describes spontaneously reported vaccine adverse effects received through the hospital's internal electronic safety reporting system from December 2020 to 13 April 2021.We assessed each report for causality association utilizing the world health organization's (WHO) causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization (AEFI) classification 2nd Edition 2019.Results: The majority of the reported events were mild to moderate, there were five serious events, one reported cardiac arrest, two cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and two pulmonary embolism. Clinical and laboratory summary of the five patients are presented in detail.Conclusions: Efforts of pharmacovigilance in mediating the rare risk of thrombosis associated with COVID-19 vaccine are crucial in providing awareness on the possible risk factors and signs/symptoms that should raise red flags.

COVID-19 Vaccines and the Skin: The Landscape of Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions Worldwide.

In 2021, we entered a new phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. As mass vaccinations are underway and more vaccines are approved, it is important to recognize cutaneous adverse events. We review the dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 vaccines as reported in clinical trial data and summarize additional observational reports of skin reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Early-onset local injection reactions were the most common cutaneous side effects observed in clinical trials; delayed injection reactions were the most common cutaneous side effect reported outside of clinical trials. Understanding the landscape of cutaneous manifestations to COVID-19 vaccines is key to providing appropriate vaccine guidance.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccines and Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: A Review.

We are entering a new stage of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic with the initiation of large-scale vaccination programs globally. In these circumstances, even rare adverse effects of vaccines may be encountered more often, if millions of people are to be vaccinated in a short period. Vaccination has the potential for causing cutaneous adverse effects. Thus, it is paramount that dermatologists worldwide are acquainted with the possible skin reaction patterns to the coming vaccines. Herein, we conduct a review to discuss the most frequent cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines and their management, with a particular focus on the expected adverse reactions for the coming severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines, such as local reactions, as well as immediate- and delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, including erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrosis, serum sickness-like reactions, and vasculitides. We also discuss the yet unanswered questions on vaccines for which we may soon be asked to provide an expert opinion.

Postvaccination COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers, Israel.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) symptoms can be mistaken for vaccine-related side effects during initial days after immunization. Among 4,081 vaccinated healthcare workers in Israel, 22 (0.54%) developed COVID-19 from 1-10 days (median 3.5 days) after immunization. Clinicians should not dismiss postvaccination symptoms as vaccine-related and should promptly test for COVID-19.

Systemic corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related smell dysfunction: an international view.

The frequent association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and olfactory dysfunction is creating an unprecedented demand for a treatment of the olfactory loss. Systemic corticosteroids have been considered as a therapeutic option. However, based on current literature, we call for caution using these treatments in early COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction because: (1) evidence supporting their usefulness is weak; (2) the rate of spontaneous recovery of COVID-19-related olfactory dysfunction is high; and (3) corticosteroids have well-known potential adverse effects. We encourage randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy of systemic steroids in this indication and strongly emphasize to initially consider smell training, which is supported by a robust evidence base and has no known side effects.

Global Safety Database Summary of COVID-19-Related Drug Utilization-Safety Surveillance: A Sponsor's Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based clinical data on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pharmacotherapies are scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study documented and characterized COVID-19 cases reported in individuals receiving treatment with Pfizer pharmaceutical products and cases that reported use of Pfizer pharmaceutical products for COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: This retrospective observational review leveraged the Pfizer safety database containing adverse event data collected in association with use of Pfizer products between 1 October, 2019, and 25 June, 2020; the database includes worldwide adverse event data from various sources. Selected Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) Preferred Terms and subsequent clinical review were used to characterize COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: Over 1500 relevant cases were identified over an 8-month period. In cases that reported COVID-19, immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents, followed by anticoagulant/antithrombic agents and corticosteroids, were the most frequently reported agents. The frequent reporting of immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents among cases of COVID-19 suggests increased vulnerability to infection among treated patients, either because of immunosuppressive effects of certain agents or the nature of the underlying treated condition. In cases involving off-label pharmacotherapy use for the treatment of COVID-19-related conditions, the most frequently reported therapeutic classes included antibiotics, antimalarial agents, antivirals/antiretroviral agents, immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents, corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and immunoglobulin/interferons. The most frequently reported pharmacotherapeutic agents were azithromycin and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, followed by lopinavir-ritonavir, ceftriaxone, and tofacitinib. The most frequently reported clinical adverse events associated with azithromycin (as sole therapy or combined with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine) include electrocardiogram QT prolonged, drug interaction, hepatitis, diarrhea, and hepatitis acute. Regarding cardiac-related events, 19% (120/645) of azithromycin cases reported events associated with QT prolongation/torsade de pointes (which included seven fatal cardiac events). The most frequently reported clinical adverse events associated with other commonly used agents are also presented. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacovigilance surveillance study provides a unique characterization of cases in which a broad range of pharmaceutical products was reported in relation to COVID-19.