Communicating for the Safe Use of Medicines: Progress and Directions for the 2020s Promoted by the Special Interest Group of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance: An International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Drug Experience

Bahri et al discuss the International Society of Pharmacovigilance's (ISoP) Special Interest Group on Medicinal Product Risk Communication (CommSIG). ISoP dedicated a range of activities to communication about the risks and safe use of medicines in the decade before creating the CommSIG, including a pre-conference training course in Tianjin in 2014. Establishing the CommSIG also built on a forward-looking attitude to changes in medicine, communication technology, patient expectations, and societies overall. It was also recognized that the multidisciplinary approach to communication would support reaching out to patient groups, healthcare, medicine information and media professionals, and experts from the communication, social, healthcare and data sciences. The nine founding members of the CommSIG published its background and aspirations in ISoP's official journal, Drug Safety.

Exploring the Use of Monoclonal Antibodies and Antiviral Therapies for Early Treatment of COVID-19 Outpatients in a Real-World Setting: A Nationwide Study from England and Italy.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatients with newly approved therapies are sparse. AIM: To explore the pattern of use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)/antiviral therapies approved for early COVID-19 treatment in non-hospitalized patients from England and Italy from December 2021 to October 2022. METHODS: Public national dashboards on weekly mAb/antiviral use and/or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnoses from the Italian Medicines Agency, the Italian National Institute of Health, National Health Service in England and the UK Government were explored. Prevalence of antiviral use in outpatients during the entire study period and every two weeks was calculated, as a whole and by class and compounds. An interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis was carried out to assess the impact of predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants over time on the prevalence of use of mAbs/antivirals in England and Italy. RESULTS: Overall, 77,469 and 195,604 doses of mAbs/antivirals were respectively administered to a total of 10,630,903 (7.3 per 1000) and 18,168,365 (10.8 per 1000) patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in England and Italy. Prevalence of use every two weeks increased from 0.07% to 3.1% in England and 0.9% to 2.3% in Italy during the study period. Regarding individual compounds, sotrovimab (prevalence of use, 1.6%) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (1.6%) in England, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (1.7%) and molnupiravir (0.5%) in Italy, reported the highest prevalence during a 2-week period. In the ITS analysis, the transition from Delta to Omicron variant predominance was associated with a significant increase in the use of sotrovimab, molnupiravir, remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in both England and Italy, with a reduction of other marketed mAbs. The extent of the increase was higher in England than in Italy for all these drugs except for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: In this dual nationwide study, the prevalence of use of mAbs/antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 for early outpatients' treatment increased slowly up to 2.0-3.0% of all patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in both England and Italy from December 2021 to October 2022. The trend of individual drug use varied in relation to predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants with some differences across countries. In line with scientific societies' guidelines, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was the most frequently prescribed antiviral in both countries in the most recent period.

Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines Among the Paediatric Population: Analysis of the European Surveillance Systems and Pivotal Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The European Medicine Agency extended the use of Comirnaty, Spikevax, and Nuvaxovid in paediatrics; thus, these vaccines require additional real-world safety evidence. Herein, we aimed to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines through Covid-19 Vaccine Monitor (CVM) and EudraVigilance surveillance systems and the published pivotal clinical trials. METHODS: In a prospective cohort of vaccinees aged between 5 and 17 years, we measured the frequency of commonly reported (local/systemic solicited) and serious adverse drug events (ADRs) following the first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines in Europe using data from the CVM cohort until April 2022. The results of previous pivotal clinical trials and data in the EudraVigilance were also analysed. RESULTS: The CVM study enrolled 658 first-dose vaccinees (children aged 5-11 years; n = 250 and adolescents aged 12-17 years; n = 408). Local/systemic solicited ADRs were common, whereas serious ADRs were uncommon. Among Comirnaty first and second dose recipients, 28.8% and 17.1% of children and 54.2% and 52.2% of adolescents experienced at least one ADR, respectively; injection-site pain (29.2% and 20.7%), fatigue (16.1% and 12.8%), and headache (22.1% and 19.3%) were the most frequent local and systemic ADRs. Results were consistent but slightly lower than in pivotal clinical trials. Reporting rates in Eudravigilance were lower by a factor of 1000. CONCLUSIONS: The CVM study showed high frequencies of local solicited reactions after vaccination but lower rates than in pivotal clinical trials. Injection-site pain, fatigue, and headache were the most commonly reported ADRs for clinical trials, but higher than spontaneously reported data.

Is PEGylation of Drugs Associated with Hypersensitivity Reactions? An Analysis of the Italian National Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting System.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Evidence highlights the allergenic potential of PEGylated drugs because of the production of anti-polyethylene glycol immunoglobulins. We investigated the risk of hypersensitivity reactions of PEGylated drugs using the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting system database. METHODS: We selected adverse drug reaction reports attributed to medicinal products containing PEGylated active substances and/or PEGylated liposomes from the Italian Spontaneous Reporting System in the period between its inception and March 2021. As comparators, we extracted adverse drug reaction reports of medicinal products containing the same non-PEGylated active substances and/or non-PEGylated liposomes (or compounds belonging to the same mechanistic class). A descriptive analysis of reports of hypersensitivity reactions was performed. Reporting rates and time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions were also calculated in the period between January 2009 and March 2021. As a measure of disproportionality, we calculated the reporting odds ratio. RESULTS: Overall, 3865 adverse drug reaction reports were related to PEGylated medicinal products and 11,961 to their non-PEGylated comparators. Around two-thirds of patients were female and reports mostly concerned patients aged between 46 and 64 years. The frequency of hypersensitivity reactions reporting was higher among PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (11.7% vs 9.4%, p < 0.0001). The hypersensitivity reaction reporting rates were higher for PEGylated medicinal products versus non-PEGylated medicinal products, with reporting rate ratios that ranged from 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.8-2.5) for pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim to 20.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-143.5) for peginterferon alpha-2a versus interferon alpha-2a. The median time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions was 10 days (interquartile range: 0-61) for PEGylated medicinal products, and 36 days (interquartile range: 3-216) for non-PEGylated comparators. Statistically significant reporting odds ratios were observed when comparing the reporting of hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (reporting odds ratio: 1.3; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.4). However, when using all other drugs as comparators, the disproportionality analysis showed no association with hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated nor non-PEGylated medicinal products, thus suggesting that many other triggers of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions play a major role. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this analysis of the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction database suggest a potential involvement for PEGylation in triggering drug-related hypersensitivity reactions, especially clinically relevant reactions. However, when comparing both PEGylated and non-PEGylated drugs under study to all other drugs no disproportionate reporting of hypersensitivity reactions was observed, probably due to a masking effect owing to the presence in the same database of other medicinal products increasing the threshold required to highlight a safety signal when the entire database is used as a reference.

Cohort Event Monitoring of Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines in Seven European Countries: Pooled Results on First Dose.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines were rapidly authorised, thus requiring intense post-marketing re-evaluation of their benefit-risk profile. A multi-national European collaboration was established with the aim to prospectively monitor safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through web-based survey of vaccinees. METHODS: A prospective cohort event monitoring study was conducted with primary consented data collection in seven European countries. Through the web applications, participants received and completed baseline and up to six follow-up questionnaires on self-reported adverse reactions for at least 6 months following the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Netherlands, France, Belgium, UK, Italy) and baseline and up to ten follow-up questionnaires for one year in Germany and Croatia. Rates of adverse reactions have been described by type (solicited, non-solicited; serious/non-serious; and adverse events of special interest) and stratified by vaccine brand. We calculated the frequency of adverse reaction after dose 1 and prior to dose 2 among all vaccinees who completed at least one follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, 117,791 participants were included and completed the first questionnaire in addition to the baseline: 88,196 (74.9%) from Germany, 27,588 (23.4%) from Netherlands, 984 (0.8%) from France, 570 (0.5%) from Italy, 326 (0.3%) from Croatia, 89 (0.1%) from the UK and 38 (0.03%) from Belgium. There were 89,377 (75.9%) respondents who had received AstraZeneca vaccines, 14,658 (12.4%) BioNTech/Pfizer, 11,266 (9.6%) Moderna and 2490 (2.1%) Janssen vaccines as a first dose. Median age category was 40-49 years for all vaccines except for Pfizer where median age was 70-79 years. Most vaccinees were female with a female-to-male ratio of 1.34, 1.96 and 2.50 for AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen, respectively. BioNtech/Pfizer had slightly more men with a ratio of 0.82. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported solicited systemic adverse reactions and injection-site pain was the most common solicited local reaction. The rates of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were 0.1-0.2% across all vaccine brands. CONCLUSION: This large-scale prospective study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients showed, for all the studied vaccines, a high frequency of systemic reactions, related to the immunogenic response, and local reactions at the injection site, while serious reactions or AESIs were uncommon, consistent with those reported on product labels. This study demonstrated the feasibility of setting up and conducting cohort event monitoring across multiple European countries to collect safety data on novel vaccines that are rolled out at scale in populations which may not have been included in pivotal trials.

Azithromycin in COVID‑19 Patients: Pharmacological Mechanism, Clinical Evidence and Prescribing Guidelines: An International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Drug Experience

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to a race to find medications that can improve the prognosis of the disease. Azithromycin, in association with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, has been proposed as one such medication. The aim of this review is to describe the pharmacological mechanism, clinical evidence and prescribing guidelines concerning azithromycin in COVID-19 patients. There is weak evidence on the antiviral and immunomodulating effects of azithromycin, which in addition is not based on results from COVID-19 patients specifically. Therefore, this antibacterial should be considered only as empirical treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), although not all current treatment guidelines are in agreement. After the initial expectations raised by a small trial, more recent evidence has raised serious safety concerns on the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with azithromycin to treat COVID-19 patients, as all these drugs have arrhythmogenic potential. The World Health Organization has not made recommendations suggesting the use of azithromycin with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine as treatment for COVID-19, but some national organisations have taken a different position, recommending this as first-line treatment. Several scientific societies, including the American College of Cardiology, have cautioned about the risks of this treatment in view of the lack of evidence concerning its benefits.

Post-Marketing Surveillance of CAR-T-Cell Therapies: Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database.

INTRODUCTION: As chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies are becoming increasingly available in the armamentarium of the hematologist, there is an emerging need to monitor post-marketing safety. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to better characterize their safety profile by focusing on cytokine release syndrome and identifying emerging signals. METHODS: We queried the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (October 2017-September 2020) to analyze suspected adverse drug reactions to tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel). Disproportionality analyses (reporting odds ratio) were performed by comparing chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies with (a) all other drugs (reference group 1) and (b) other onco-hematological drugs with a similar indication, irrespective of age (reference group 2), or (c) restricted to adults (reference group 3). Notoriety was assessed through package inserts and risk management plans. Adverse drug reaction time to onset and cytokine release syndrome features were investigated. RESULTS: Overall, 3225 reports (1793 axi-cel; 1433 tisa-cel) were identified. The reported toxicities were mainly: cytokine release syndrome (52.2%), febrile disorders (27.7%), and neurotoxicity (27.2%). Cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity were often co-reported and 75% of the events occurred in the first 10 days. Disproportionalities confirmed known adverse drug reactions and showed unexpected associations: for example, axi-cel with cardiomyopathies (reporting odds ratio = 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.2-4.4) and gastrointestinal perforations (2.9; 1.2-7.3), tisa-cel with hepatotoxicity (2.5; 1.1-5.7) and pupil disorders (15.3; 6-39.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the well-known adverse drug reactions and detects potentially emerging safety issues specific for each chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, also providing insights into a stronger role for tisa-cel in inducing some immunodeficiency-related events (e.g., hypogammaglobulinemia, infections) and coagulopathies, and for axi-cel in neurotoxicity.

Postmarketing active surveillance of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy: A multi-database, self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: Myocarditis and pericarditis following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines administration have been reported, but their frequency is still uncertain in the younger population. This study investigated the association between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 and myocarditis/pericarditis in the population of vaccinated persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a self-controlled case series study (SCCS) using national data on COVID-19 vaccination linked to emergency care/hospital discharge databases. The outcome was the first diagnosis of myocarditis/pericarditis between 27 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. Exposure risk period (0 to 21 days from the vaccination day, subdivided in 3 equal intervals) for first and second dose was compared with baseline period. The SCCS model, adapted to event-dependent exposures, was fitted using unbiased estimating equations to estimate relative incidences (RIs) and excess of cases (EC) per 100,000 vaccinated by dose, age, sex, and vaccine product. Calendar period was included as time-varying confounder in the model. During the study period 2,861,809 persons aged 12 to 39 years received mRNA vaccines (2,405,759 BNT162b2; 456,050 mRNA-1273); 441 participants developed myocarditis/pericarditis (346 BNT162b2; 95 mRNA-1273). Within the 21-day risk interval, 114 myocarditis/pericarditis events occurred, the RI was 1.99 (1.30 to 3.05) after second dose of BNT162b2 and 2.22 (1.00 to 4.91) and 2.63 (1.21 to 5.71) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. During the [0 to 7) days risk period, an increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was observed after first dose of mRNA-1273, with RI of 6.55 (2.73 to 15.72), and after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, with RIs of 3.39 (2.02 to 5.68) and 7.59 (3.26 to 17.65). The number of EC for second dose of mRNA-1273 was 5.5 per 100,000 vaccinated (3.0 to 7.9). The highest risk was observed in males, at [0 to 7) days after first and second dose of mRNA-1273 with RI of 12.28 (4.09 to 36.83) and RI of 11.91 (3.88 to 36.53); the number of EC after the second dose of mRNA-1273 was 8.8 (4.9 to 12.9). Among those aged 12 to 17 years, the RI was of 5.74 (1.52 to 21.72) after second dose of BNT162b2; for this age group, the number of events was insufficient for estimating RIs after mRNA-1273. Among those aged 18 to 29 years, the RIs were 7.58 (2.62 to 21.94) after first dose of mRNA-1273 and 4.02 (1.81 to 8.91) and 9.58 (3.32 to 27.58) after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273; the numbers of EC were 3.4 (1.1 to 6.0) and 8.6 (4.4 to 12.6) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. The main study limitations were that the outcome was not validated through review of clinical records, and there was an absence of information on the length of hospitalization and, thus, the severity of the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study of about 3 millions of residents in Italy suggested that mRNA vaccines were associated with myocarditis/pericarditis in the population younger than 40 years. According to our results, increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was associated with the second dose of BNT162b2 and both doses of mRNA-1273. The highest risks were observed in males of 12 to 39 years and in males and females 18 to 29 years vaccinated with mRNA-1273. The public health implication of these findings should be considered in the light of the proven mRNA vaccine effectiveness in preventing serious COVID-19 disease and death.

Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines: Risk Factors, Frequency, Mechanisms and Management.

Conventional vaccines have been widely studied, along with their risk of causing allergic reactions. These generally consist of mild local reactions and only rarely severe anaphylaxis. Although all the current COVID-19 vaccines marketed in Europe have been shown to be safe overall in the general population, early post-marketing evidence has shown that mRNA-based vaccines using novel platforms (i.e., lipid nanoparticles) were associated with an increased risk of severe allergic reactions as compared to conventional vaccines. In this paper we performed an updated literature review on frequency, risk factors, and underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergies by searching MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases. We also conducted a qualitative search on VigiBase and EudraVigilance databases to identify reports of "Hypersensitivity" and "Anaphylactic reaction" potentially related to COVID-19 vaccines (Comirnaty, Spikevax, Vaxzevria and COVID-19 Janssen Vaccine), and in EudraVigilance to estimate the reporting rates of "Anaphylactic reaction" and "Anaphylactic shock" after COVID-19 vaccination in the European population. We also summarized the scientific societies' and regulatory agencies' recommendations for prevention and management of COVID-19 vaccine-related allergic reactions, especially in those with a history of allergy.

COVID-19 Patient Management in Outpatient Setting: A Population-Based Study from Southern Italy.

Evidence on treatments for early-stage COVID-19 in outpatient setting is sparse. We explored the pattern of use of drugs prescribed for COVID-19 outpatients' management in Southern Italy in the period February 2020-January 2021. This population-based cohort study was conducted using COVID-19 surveillance registry from Caserta Local Health Unit, which was linked to claims databases from the same catchment area. The date of SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis was the index date (ID). We evaluated demographic and clinical characteristics of the study drug users and the pattern of use of drugs prescribed for outpatient COVID-19 management. Overall, 40,030 patients were included in the analyses, with a median (IQR) age of 44 (27-58) years. More than half of the included patients were asymptomatic at the ID. Overall, during the study period, 720 (1.8%) patients died due to COVID-19. Azithromycin and glucocorticoids were the most frequently prescribed drugs, while oxygen was the less frequently prescribed therapy. The cumulative rate of recovery from COVID-19 was 84.2% at 30 days from ID and it was lower among older patients. In this study we documented that the drug prescribing patterns for COVID-19 treatment in an outpatient setting from Southern Italy was not supported from current evidence on beneficial therapies for early treatment of COVID-19, thus highlighting the need to implement strategies for improving appropriate drug prescribing in general practice.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy, Paediatrics, Immunocompromised Patients, and Persons with History of Allergy or Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Overview of Current Recommendations and Pre- and Post-Marketing Evidence for Vaccine Efficacy and Safety.

To date, four vaccines have been authorised for emergency use and under conditional approval by the European Medicines Agency to prevent COVID-19: Comirnaty, COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen, Spikevax (previously COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna) and Vaxzevria (previously COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca). Although the benefit-risk profile of these vaccines was proven to be largely favourable in the general population, evidence in special cohorts initially excluded from the pivotal trials, such as pregnant and breastfeeding women, children/adolescents, immunocompromised people and persons with a history of allergy or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, is still limited. In this narrative review, we critically overview pre- and post-marketing evidence on the potential benefits and risks of marketed COVID-19 vaccines in the above-mentioned special cohorts. In addition, we summarise the recommendations of the scientific societies and regulatory agencies about COVID-19 primary prevention in the same vaccinee categories.

Risk of coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalization and mortality in rheumatic patients treated with hydroxychloroquine or other conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain if the use of hydroxychloroquine(HCQ)/cloroquine(CLQ) and other conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and rheumatic diseases per se may be associated with COVID-19-related risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: This case-control study nested within a cohort of cDMARD users was conducted in the Lombardy, Veneto, Tuscany and Lazio regions and Reggio Emilia province. Claims databases were linked to COVID-19 surveillance registries. The risk of COVID-19-related outcomes was estimated using a multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis comparing HCQ/CLQ vs MTX, vs other cDMARDs and vs non-use of these drugs. The presence of rheumatic diseases vs their absence in a non-nested population was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 1275 patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 were matched to 12 734 controls. Compared with recent use of MTX, no association between HCQ/CLQ monotherapy and COVID-19 hospitalization [odds ratio (OR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.69, 1.00)] or mortality [OR 1.19 (95% CI 0.85, 1.67)] was observed. A lower risk was found when comparing HCQ/CLQ use with the concomitant use of other cDMARDs and glucocorticoids. HCQ/CLQ was not associated with COVID-19 hospitalization as compared with non-use. An increased risk for recent use of either MTX monotherapy [OR 1.19 (95% CI 1.05, 1.34)] or other cDMARDs [OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.08, 1.36)] vs non-use was found. Rheumatic diseases were not associated with COVID-19-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: HCQ/CLQ use in rheumatic patients was not associated with a protective effect against COVID-19-related outcomes. The use of other cDMARDs was associated with an increased risk when compared with non-use and, if concomitantly used with glucocorticoids, also vs HCQ/CLQ, probably due to immunosuppressive action.

Large-Scale Postmarketing Surveillance of Biological Drugs for Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases Through an Italian Distributed Multi-Database Healthcare Network: The VALORE Project.

BACKGROUND: Biological drugs have improved the management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) despite being associated with important safety issues such as immunogenicity, infections, and malignancies in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the potential of a large Italian multi-database distributed network for use in the postmarketing surveillance of biological drugs, including biosimilars, in patients with IMID. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 13 Italian regional claims databases during 2010-2019. A tailor-made R-based tool developed for distributed analysis of claims data using a study-specific common data model was customized for this study. We measured the yearly prevalence of biological drug users and the frequency of switches between originator and biosimilars for infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab separately and stratified them by calendar year and region. We then calculated the cumulative number of users and person-years (PYs) of exposure to individual biological drugs approved for IMIDs. For a number of safety outcomes (e.g., severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-COV-2] infection), we conducted a sample power calculation to estimate the PYs of exposure required to investigate their association with individual biological drugs approved for IMIDs, considering different strengths of association. RESULTS: From a total underlying population of almost 50 million inhabitants from 13 Italian regions, we identified 143,602 (0.3%) biological drug users, with a cumulative exposure of 507,745 PYs during the entire follow-up. The mean age ± standard deviation of biological drug users was 49.3 ± 16.3, with a female-to-male ratio of 1.2. The age-adjusted yearly prevalence of biological drug users increased threefold from 0.7 per 1000 in 2010 to 2.1 per 1000 in 2019. Overall, we identified 40,996 users of biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (i.e., etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab) in the years 2015-2019. Of these, 46% (N = 18,845) switched at any time between originator and biosimilars or vice versa. To investigate a moderate association (incidence rate ratio 2) between biological drugs approved for IMIDs and safety events of interest, such as optic neuritis (lowest background incidence rate 10.4/100,000 PYs) or severe infection (highest background incidence rate 4312/100,000 PYs), a total of 43,311 PYs and 104 PYs of exposure to individual biological drugs, respectively, would be required. As such, using this network, of 15 individual biological drugs approved for IMIDs, the association with those adverse events could be investigated for four (27%) and 14 (93%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The VALORE project multi-database network has access to data on more than 140,000 biological drug users (and > 0.5 million PYs) from 13 Italian regions during the years 2010-2019, which will be further expanded with the inclusion of data from other regions and more recent calendar years. Overall, the cumulated amount of person-time of exposure to biological drugs approved for IMIDs provides enough statistical power to investigate weak/moderate associations of almost all individual compounds and the most relevant safety outcomes. Moreover, this network may offer the opportunity to investigate the interchangeability of originator and biosimilars of several TNFα inhibitors in different therapeutic areas in real-world settings.

Association of Influenza Vaccination and Prognosis in Patients Testing Positive to SARS-CoV-2 Swab Test: A Large-Scale Italian Multi-Database Cohort Study.

To investigate the association of the 2019-2020 influenza vaccine with prognosis of patients positive for SARS-CoV-2A, a large multi-database cohort study was conducted in four Italian regions (i.e., Lazio, Lombardy, Veneto, and Tuscany) and the Reggio Emilia province (Emilia-Romagna). More than 21 million adults were residing in the study area (42% of the population). We included 115,945 COVID-19 cases diagnosed during the first wave of the pandemic (February-May, 2020); 34.6% of these had been vaccinated against influenza. Three outcomes were considered: hospitalization, death, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission/death. The adjusted relative risk (RR) of being hospitalized in the vaccinated group when compared with the non-vaccinated group was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.86-0.88). This reduction in risk was not confirmed for death (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06), or for the combined outcome of ICU admission or death. In conclusion, our study, conducted on the vast majority of the population during the first wave of the pandemic in Italy, showed a 13% statistically significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization in some geographical areas and in the younger population. No impact of seasonal influenza vaccination on COVID-19 prognosis in terms of death and death or ICU admission was estimated.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Risk of Death in Patients Hospitalised with COVID-19: A Retrospective Italian Cohort Study of 43,000 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The epidemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been spreading globally, raising increasing concerns. There are several controversial hypotheses on the potentially harmful or beneficial effects of antihypertensive drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, there is accumulating evidence, based on several observational studies, that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) do not increase the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection. On the other hand, conflicting findings regarding the role of ACEIs/ARBs as prognosis modifiers in COVID-19 hospitalised patients have been reported. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this large-scale, retrospective cohort study was to investigate whether prior exposure to ACEIs and/or ARBs was associated with all-cause mortality among over 40,000 hospitalised COVID-19 patients compared with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a potential therapeutic alternative. METHODS: This study was conducted using COVID-19 registries linked to claims databases from Lombardy, Veneto and Reggio Emilia (overall, 25% of Italian population). Overall, 42,926 patients hospitalised between 21 February and 21 April 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction tests were included in this study. All-cause mortality occurring in or out of hospital, as reported in the COVID-19 registry, was estimated. Using Cox models, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause mortality (along with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated separately for ACEIs/ARBs and other antihypertensives versus CCBs and non-use. RESULTS: Overall, 11,205 in- and out-of-hospital deaths occurred over a median of 24 days of follow-up after hospital admission due to COVID-19. Compared with CCBs, adjusted analyses showed no difference in the risk of death among ACEI (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89-1.06) or ARB (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.06) users. When non-use of antihypertensives was considered as a comparator, a modest statistically significant increase in mortality risk was observed for any antihypertensive use. However, when restricting to drugs with antihypertensive indications only, these marginal increases disappeared. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed our main findings. CONCLUSIONS: ACEI/ARB use is not associated with either an increased or decreased risk of all-cause mortality, compared with CCB use, in the largest cohort of hospitalised COVID-19 patients exposed to these drugs studied to date. The use of these drugs therefore does not affect the prognosis of COVID-19. This finding strengthens recommendations of international regulatory agencies about not withdrawing/switching ACEI/ARB treatments to modify COVID-19 prognosis.

Survival of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Northern Italy: A Population-Based Cohort Study by the ITA-COVID-19 Network.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 case fatality rate in hospitalized patients varies across countries and studies. Reliable estimates, specific for age, sex, and comorbidities, are needed to monitor the epidemic, to compare the outcome in different settings, and to correctly design trials for COVID-19 interventions. The aim of this study was to provide population-based survival curves of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort study was conducted in three areas of Northern Italy, heavily affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection (Lombardy and Veneto Regions, and Reggio Emilia province), using a loco-regional COVID-19 surveillance system, linked to hospital discharge databases. We included all patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal/throat swab samples who were hospitalized from 21 February to 21 April 2020. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated at 14 and 30 days for death in any setting, stratifying by age, sex, and the Charlson Index. RESULTS: Overall, 42,926 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were identified. Patients' median age was 69 years (IQR: 57-79), 62.6% were males, and 6.0% had a Charlson Index ≥3. Survival curves showed that 22.0% (95% CI 21.6-22.4) of patients died within 14 days and 27.6% (95% CI 27.2-28.1) within 30 days from hospitalization. Survival was higher in younger patients and in females. The negative impact of comorbidities on survival was more pronounced in younger age groups. CONCLUSION: The high fatality rate observed in the study (28% at 30 days) suggests that studies should focus on death as primary endpoint during a follow-up of at least one month.

Challenges for Drug Repurposing in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has affected an estimated 16 million persons and caused 0.6 million deaths worldwide by September 2020. The pandemic has led to a rush to repurpose existing drugs, although the underlying evidence base is of variable quality. The improving knowledge of the virology and clinical presentation of COVID-19 is leading to a broadening pool of potential pharmacological targets. The aim of this review is to describe regulatory and pharmacological aspects of drug repurposing and to identify drugs proposed for repurposing in COVID-19 based on registered clinical trials, discussing the evidence to support their use in the treatment of this disease. The challenges of the correct interpretation of existing pre-clinical/clinical evidence as well as the generation of new evidence concerning drug repurposing in COVID-19 will also be discussed. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04321174, NCT04342663, NCT04280705, NCT04244591, NCT04359329, NCT04348695, NCT04304313, NCT043505931.

Potential effects of vaccinations on the prevention of COVID-19: rationale, clinical evidence, risks, and public health considerations.

Introduction Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), has quickly spread around the world. Areas covered This review will discuss the available immunologic and clinical evidence to support the benefit of the influenza, pneumococcal, and tuberculosis vaccines in the context of COVID-19 as well as to provide an overview on the COVID-19-specific vaccines that are in the development pipeline. In addition, implications for vaccination strategies from a public health perspective will be discussed. Expert opinion Some vaccines are being considered for their potentially beneficial role in preventing or improving the prognosis of COVID-19: influenza, pneumococcal and tuberculosis vaccines. These vaccines may have either direct effect on COVID-19 via different types of immune responses or indirect effects by reducing the burden of viral and bacterial respiratory diseases on individual patients and national healthcare system and by facilitating differential diagnoses with other viral/bacterial respiratory disease. On the other hand, a large number of candidate vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are currently in the pipeline and undergoing phase I, II, and III clinical studies. As SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected to be marketed through accelerated regulatory pathways, vaccinovigilance as well as planning of a successful vaccination campaign will play a major role in protecting public health.

Azithromycin in COVID-19 Patients: Pharmacological Mechanism, Clinical Evidence and Prescribing Guidelines.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to a race to find medications that can improve the prognosis of the disease. Azithromycin, in association with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, has been proposed as one such medication. The aim of this review is to describe the pharmacological mechanism, clinical evidence and prescribing guidelines concerning azithromycin in COVID-19 patients. There is weak evidence on the antiviral and immunomodulating effects of azithromycin, which in addition is not based on results from COVID-19 patients specifically. Therefore, this antibacterial should be considered only as empirical treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), although not all current treatment guidelines are in agreement. After the initial expectations raised by a small trial, more recent evidence has raised serious safety concerns on the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with azithromycin to treat COVID-19 patients, as all these drugs have arrhythmogenic potential. The World Health Organization has not made recommendations suggesting the use of azithromycin with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine as treatment for COVID-19, but some national organisations have taken a different position, recommending this as first-line treatment. Several scientific societies, including the American College of Cardiology, have cautioned about the risks of this treatment in view of the lack of evidence concerning its benefits.

Potential Role of Anti-interleukin (IL)-6 Drugs in the Treatment of COVID-19: Rationale, Clinical Evidence and Risks.

The epidemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been spreading globally, raising increasing concerns. This public health emergency has triggered a race to find medications to improve the prognosis of this disease. There is currently great interest in drug repositioning to manage SARS-CoV-2 infection, that is, the evaluation of the potential benefits of a drug that has already been proven safe and effective in humans for other approved indications. As interleukin-6 (IL-6) acts as a key driver of the inflammation associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), IL-6 and IL-6 receptor (IL-6R) inhibition appear to be promising targets for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. It is important to critically analyze the available evidence concerning the use of the available anti-IL-6 (siltuximab) and anti-IL-6R (tocilizumab and sarilumab) agents in COVID-19 patients, in terms of both benefit and risk. In this review, the pathogenesis of the cytokine storm induced by COVID-19, the role of IL-6 in this cytokine storm, the rationale for the use of anti-IL-6 agents, and key information on potential benefits and safety monitoring of these biologicals in COVID-19 patients is discussed.