Prescribing Patterns of Codeine and Alternative Medicines in Children in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Concerns over serious respiratory depression in children led to two European Union (EU) referral procedures (in 2013 and 2015) to review the benefit-risk balance of codeine in this population when used for pain relief, cough or cold. Consequently, codeine should no longer be used in children aged < 12 years and restrictions were introduced for treatment in children ≥ 12 years. OBJECTIVE: This multinational collaborative study aimed to assess the effectiveness of these risk minimisation measures by evaluating changes in prescribing of codeine and alternative treatments. METHOD: Children under 12 and 12-18 years old were followed between 2010 and 2017 to analyse quarterly trends in prescribing of codeine and alternative treatments in electronic health records from France, Germany, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom using interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: Overall prescribing of codeine in children decreased in all five countries, reaching near zero prevalence in children under 12 years of age. This was accompanied by an increase in use of other opioid analgesics in France (from 0.15 to 0.56 prevalence per 100 person-years immediately after the first referral), Norway (from 0.0006 to 0.0013 at the end of the study), the United Kingdom (from 0.018 to 0.05 at the end of the study), and an increase in non-opioid analgesics in Norway (from 0.045 to 0.075 at the end of the study) after the referral on pain relief indication. The referral on cough/cold indication led to a decrease in use of opioid and non-opioid antitussives in children aged < 12 years in France (from 10 to 7 and 20 to 16, respectively) and had no impact in other countries. Overall prescribing trends for codeine and alternatives were similar across both age groups within each country. CONCLUSION: The decrease in use of codeine shows that healthcare professionals followed the adopted measures and switched prescribing practices for pain management in children aged < 18 years towards opioid or non-opioid analgesics depending on national clinical and reimbursement settings. Whist the magnitude of the first referral on pain differed between countries, the second referral on cough/cold had only a minimal impact on the use of codeine and antitussives.

A strategy for assessment and validation of major bleeding cases in a primary health care database in Spain.

PURPOSE: This study aims to validate major bleeding (MB) cases within a cohort of new users of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Electronic health records (EHRs) from primary care in Spain (BIFAP), introducing more efficient techniques and automating the process of validation in the pharmacoepidemiologic research with EHR data as much as possible. METHODS: Registered bleedings were identified in a cohort of new users of DOACs in BIFAP using ICPC 2 and ICD 9 codes; we ascertained these bleedings as MB through a validation strategy based on the MB definition from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, which used hospitalization and critical localization as proxies. We assessed hospitalization with hospital discharge information (only available for some years and regions) and a free text-based algorithm created to identify hospitalization in EHR's clinical notes. Incidence rates (IR) of MB were evaluated by bleeding type. RESULTS: The study cohort included 104 614 patients, with 274521.5 p-y of follow up. There were 6143 registered bleedings during the study period (519 intracranial bleeding - ICB, 4606 gastrointestinal bleeding - GIB, 1018 extracranial bleeding - ECB), from which 1679 were confirmed as MB (416 ICB, 1086 GIB, and 177 ECB). The free text-based semi-automatic algorithm had moderate recall (0.59), but high specificity (0.99), and precision (0.94). CONCLUSION: The combination of hospitalization and critical localization is a valid approach to validate MB in EHRs with incomplete information. The use of more automatic methods for case validation instead of manual review of clinical notes is favored.

The safety of drugs for inflammatory bowel disease during pregnancy and breastfeeding: the DUMBO registry study protocol of GETECCU.

BACKGROUND: Active disease during conception and pregnancy in women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increases the risk of pregnancy complications and adverse neonatal outcomes. The use of IBD treatments during pregnancy should be weighed against their adverse effects on the neonate, but longer-term safety data and data on serious infection rates and malignancies postnatally are lacking, particularly for newer drugs, such as tofacitinib, vedolizumab and ustekinumab. METHODS: This ongoing, prospective registry study being conducted at 70 centres in Spain is enrolling pregnant women who are ⩾18 years, are at any point in pregnancy up to the end of the second trimester and have a diagnosis of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis or unclassified IBD. Patients will receive treatment decided independently by their IBD specialist. Each incident gestation will be followed up through pregnancy and the first 4 years postnatally. Three cohorts will be compared: biologicals exposed, immunomodulatory exposed and non-exposed. The primary endpoint is the risk of severe infection in newborns postnatally up to 4 years of age; other endpoints include serious adverse events (SAEs) such as pregnancy and delivery complications, neonatal SAEs, development [Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (ASQ3)], and malignancy incidence, up to 4 years of age. IBD specialists will collect maternal data (baseline/end of each trimester/1 month post-delivery), neonatal birth data, and the SAE and ASQ3 data in children exposed during pregnancy, reported every 3 months by the mother. Statistical analysis will include summary statistics for quantitative variables, comparisons of qualitative variables with significance set at p < 0.025 and a binary logistic regression model to determine the risk factors for severe infections. RESULTS: Enrolment began in September 2019 and study completion is expected in September 2028. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, controlled study will provide evidence on the long-term safety profile in children after intrauterine and lactation exposure to biological and immunomodulatory IBD treatments, including data on postnatal severe infections, development and malignancies. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03894228.

Correction to: Safety Communication Tools and Healthcare Professionals' Awareness of Specific Drug Safety Issues in Europe: A Survey Study.

In the original publication of the article, the headings of columns 3 and 4 in the data table.

Base de Datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria (BIFAP): A data resource for pharmacoepidemiology in Spain.

PURPOSE: Base de Datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria (BIFAP) is a population based database administered by the AEMPS (Spanish Agency for Medicines) of longitudinal electronic medical records (EMR) of patients attended in primary care. Its main purpose is to serve as source of information for independent studies on drug safety and support of medicines regulation activities. This article aim is to describe the characteristics of BIFAP, how to access the database and a summary of its potential for research. METHODS: Health problems are registered by primary care physicians as episodes of care and include socio-demographic data, results of diagnostic procedures, lifestyle data, general data, and interventions. A proportion of data on hospitalizations and specialist care are currently available through linkage with other data sources. EMRs of the Spanish healthcare system are provided by the regional administrations. Specific data extraction and standardization processes are performed. RESULTS: BIFAP includes data from 12 million patients starting in 2001 and updated annually. Validation of drug and diagnosis definitions has been ascertained. Participation in international collaborative projects and a number of articles in peer reviewed journals reflect its contribution to the knowledge of the risks associated with medicines and drug utilization patterns. CONCLUSIONS: BIFAP is a useful tool for generating scientific evidence on medicines related issues, helping regulatory decision making in Europe. The main strengths of BIFAP are related to large sample size, population-based, longitudinal nature and annual update of data. BIFAP shares common challenges with similar data sources including accurate and efficient identification of health outcomes and of treatment exposure.

Safety Communication Tools and Healthcare Professionals' Awareness of Specific Drug Safety Issues in Europe: A Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: National competent authorities (NCAs) use Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) to communicate new drug safety issues to healthcare professionals (HCPs). More knowledge is needed about the effectiveness of DHPCs and the extent to which they raise awareness of new safety issues among HCPs. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess and compare general practitioners' (GPs'), cardiologists', and pharmacists' familiarity with DHPCs as communication tools, their awareness of specific drug safety issues, and the sources through which they had become aware of the specific issues. METHODS: GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists from nine European countries (Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) completed a web-based survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with DHPCs in general and their awareness of safety issues that had recently been communicated and involved the following drugs: combined hormonal contraceptives, diclofenac, valproate, and ivabradine. Those HCPs who were aware of the specific safety issues were subsequently asked to indicate the source through which they had become aware of them. Differences between professions in familiarity with DHPCs and awareness were tested using a Pearson χ2 test per country and post hoc Pearson χ2 tests in the case of statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Of the 3288 included respondents, 54% were GPs, 40% were pharmacists, and 7% were cardiologists. The number of respondents ranged from 67 in Denmark to 916 in Spain. Most respondents (92%) were familiar with DHPCs, with one significant difference between the professions: pharmacists were more familiar than GPs in Italy (99 vs 90%, P = 0.004). GPs' awareness ranged from 96% for the diclofenac issue to 70% for the ivabradine issue. A similar pattern was shown for pharmacists (91% aware of the diclofenac issue to 66% of the ivabradine issue). Cardiologists' awareness ranged from 91% for the ivabradine issue to 34% for the valproate issue. Overall, DHPCs were a common source through which GPs (range: 45% of those aware of the contraceptives issue to 60% of those aware of the valproate issue), cardiologists (range: 33% for the contraceptives issue to 61% for the valproate issue), and pharmacists (range: 41% for the contraceptives issue to 51% for the ivabradine issue) had become aware of the specific safety issues, followed by information on websites or in newsletters. CONCLUSIONS: GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists were to a similar extent (highly) familiar with DHPCs, but they differed in awareness levels of specific safety issues. Cardiologists were less aware of safety issues associated with non-cardiology drugs even if these had cardiovascular safety concerns. This implies that additional strategies may be needed to reach specialists when communicating safety issues regarding drugs outside their therapeutic area but with risks related to their field of specialisation. DHPCs were an important source for the different professions to become aware of specific safety issues, but other sources were also often used. NCAs should consider the use of a range of sources when communicating important safety issues to HCPs.

An Empirical Approach to Explore the Relationship Between Measures of Disproportionate Reporting and Relative Risks from Analytical Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Although it seems reasonable to suppose that a drug that increases the risk of an adverse event might tend to show increased disproportionality statistics in spontaneous reporting databases, that relationship is not clear. Therefore, an empirical approach was taken to investigate the relationship between proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) and relative risk (RR) estimates from formal studies in a set of known adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHODS: Drug-event pairs that were the subject of pharmacovigilance-driven European regulatory actions from 2007 to 2010 were selected. Only pairs having RR derived from formal studies and where it was considered that there was well-established evidence supporting the actions were included. A best estimate of the RR for each ADR was chosen based on pre-specified rules. PRRs were then calculated in Eudravigilance using only those cases reported before the date of first recognition of the ADR in the medical community. An additional analysis was carried out in FEDRA, the Spanish spontaneous reports database. A descriptive analysis and an orthogonal regression model were performed. RESULTS: From an initial dataset of 78 drug-event pairs, 15 were selected. The regression model (ln RR = 0.203 + 0.463 × ln PRR) showed a significant (p < 0.001) correlation between RR and PRR in Eudravigilance. None of the ADR-related variables analysed modified the relationship. Exploratory results in FEDRA went in the same direction. CONCLUSIONS: Disproportionality measures should not replace formal studies but could provide an initial indication of the likely clinical importance of an ADR, should the signal be confirmed subsequently. Whether the same conclusions can be applied to other datasets should be further studied.

Evaluación económica de la restricción del uso de piroxicam en España / Economic evaluation of the restriction in the use piroxicam in Spain

Objetivos. Se ha realizado una evaluación económica retrospectiva de la restricción llevada a cabo en España en el uso de piroxicam, debido a un riesgo constatado de complicaciones gastrointestinales graves mayor que el de los otros antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, con el fin de poner en contexto la relevancia de las actividades de farmacovigilancia. Métodos. Se realizaron análisis de coste-efectividad y de impacto presupuestario retrospectivos. Se compararon costes y casos de complicaciones gastrointestinales graves en el escenario sin intervención (uso de piroxicam) y con intervención (uso de otros antiinflamatorios no esteroideos). Se ha obtenido el coste de complicaciones gastrointestinales graves mediante los Grupos Relacionados por el Diagnóstico del conjunto mínimo básico de datos y el de los antiinflamatorios no esteroideos con los datos de consumo en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. El riesgo de complicaciones gastrointestinales graves se estimó a partir de estudios epidemiológicos. Resultados. La intervención reguladora resultó la opción dominante, con un ahorro de 0,81 euros por paciente y 2,75 casos de complicaciones gastrointestinales graves evitados por 10.000 pacientes y un ahorro estimado en toda España de 578.608 euros en el primer año tras la intervención. Conclusiones. Es posible realizar evaluaciones económicas completas sobre actuaciones en farmacovigilancia. La intervención realizada por la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios sobre piroxicam, además de cumplir con su objetivo de prevenir reacciones adversas, supuso un ahorro significativo, incluso bajo supuestos conservadores (AU)

Objectives. A retrospective economic evaluation was performed on the restriction of the use of piroxicam in Spain, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, with a proven higher risk of serious gastrointestinal complications compared to other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with the objective of putting the relevance of these activities into context. Methods. A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis and a budget impact analysis were performed. Costs and cases of serious gastrointestinal complications were compared in the non-intervention (use of piroxicam) and the intervention scenarios (use of other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). The cost of serious gastrointestinal complications was obtained from the Diagnosis Related Groups and the cost of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs from usage data in the Spanish national health system. The risk of serious gastrointestinal complications was obtained from epidemiological studies. Results. The regulatory intervention was the dominant option. In that sense, 0.81 euros per treated patient were saved, 2.75 cases of serious gastrointestinal complications were avoided per 10,000 patients and 578,608 euros were saved in total in Spain in the first year following the intervention. Conclusions. It is possible to perform complete economical evaluations on pharmacovigilance actions. The intervention performed by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, AEMPS on piroxicam not only achieved the objective of preventing adverse drug reactions but also resulted in significant economical savings even under conservative assumptions (AU)

Economic evaluation of the restriction in the use piroxicam in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: A retrospective economic evaluation was performed on the restriction of the use of piroxicam in Spain, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, with a proven higher risk of serious gastrointestinal complications compared to other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with the objective of putting the relevance of these activities into context. METHODS: A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis and a budget impact analysis were performed. Costs and cases of serious gastrointestinal complications were compared in the non-intervention (use of piroxicam) and the intervention scenarios (use of other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). The cost of serious gastrointestinal complications was obtained from the Diagnosis Related Groups and the cost of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs from usage data in the Spanish national health system. The risk of serious gastrointestinal complications was obtained from epidemiological studies. RESULTS: The regulatory intervention was the dominant option. In that sense, 0.81 euros per treated patient were saved, 2.75 cases of serious gastrointestinal complications were avoided per 10,000 patients and 578,608 euros were saved in total in Spain in the first year following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to perform complete economical evaluations on pharmacovigilance actions. The intervention performed by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, AEMPS on piroxicam not only achieved the objective of preventing adverse drug reactions but also resulted in significant economical savings even under conservative assumptions.