Rosuvastatin: an independent analysis of risks and benefits.

BACKGROUND: Although the effectiveness of statins is well established, analyses of spontaneous adverse event reports have recently questioned the safety of rosuvastatin. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the risks and benefits of rosuvastatin and compared it with other statins presently on the market. Information was obtained from a search of medical and scientific literature that produced 3001 entries, of which 591 publications containing particularly relevant data were identified, and from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (AERS) and Spontaneous Reporting System through June 30, 2004. For the AERS data and to control for overreporting in the first postmarketing year and the effect on reporting due to the withdrawal of cerivastatin in 2001, we used the rate of a given adverse event among all adverse events as a measure of risk. We found that adverse effects of rosuvastatin in skeletal muscle, liver, and kidney function did not substantially differ in frequency from those reported for those of other statins in the market in 2004, except for the uncommon development of a mild form of presumably "tubular" proteinuria at doses of 40 mg/day or greater. In contrast, cerivastatin had significantly higher rates of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis than rosuvastatin's, but there was no additional effect on renal failure beyond that mediated through rhabdomyolysis. From our literature review, we found that rosuvastatin reduces abnormal lipids on a milligram-per-milligram comparison more than atorvastatin. CONCLUSION: We conclude that rosuvastatin at approved doses incurs no greater risk for adverse events than other marketed statins, except for a mild form of tubular proteinuria when doses at or above the maximum recommended levels (> or = 40 mg/day) were administered. Its risk-benefit ratio is acceptable when compared with other statins on the market in 2006.

Good pharmacovigilance practices: technology enabled.

The assessment of spontaneous reports is most effective it is conducted within a defined and rigorous process. The framework for good pharmacovigilance process (GPVP) is proposed as a subset of good postmarketing surveillance process (GPMSP), a functional structure for both a public health and corporate risk management strategy. GPVP has good practices that implement each step within a defined process. These practices are designed to efficiently and effectively detect and alert the drug safety professional to new and potentially important information on drug-associated adverse reactions. These practices are enabled by applied technology designed specifically for the review and assessment of spontaneous reports. Specific practices include rules-based triage, active query prompts for severe organ insults, contextual single case evaluation, statistical proportionality and correlational checks, case-series analyses, and templates for signal work-up and interpretation. These practices and the overall GPVP are supported by state-of-the-art web-based systems with powerful analytical engines, workflow and audit trials to allow validated systems support for valid drug safety signalling efforts. It is also important to understand that a process has a defined set of steps and any one cannot stand independently. Specifically, advanced use of technical alerting methods in isolation can mislead and allow one to misunderstand priorities and relative value. In the end, pharmacovigilance is a clinical art and a component process to the science of pharmacoepidemiology and risk management.