ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery is the only treatment for severe obesity (BMI>35kg/m2) currently recognized as effective both in achieving tangible and lasting weight loss, and in improving obesity-related comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular complications. Bariatric surgery, like any other surgery of the digestive tract, can have an impact on nutrient absorption, as well as on drug absorption. The literature on drug management in bariatric surgery patients concerned mainly of case reports and retrospective studies involving a small number of patients. No official guidelines are available. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on the consequences of bariatric surgery in terms of drug bioavailability and/or effect. The Medline® (PubMed) database was searched using the following keywords: "bariatric surgery", "bioavailability", "gastric bypass", and "obesity". We completed this review with an analysis of reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in post-bariatric surgery patients for obesity registered in the National pharmacovigilance database (PVDB). We selected all cases with the mention of "bariatric surgery and/or gastrectomy" as "medical history". After reading the cases, we excluded those in which the patient had undergone surgery for an indication other than obesity, where the route of administration was other than oral, and cases in which ADRs resulted from voluntary overdose, attempted suicide, allergy, switch to Levothyrox® new formulation, meningioma under progestative drugs, inefficacy related to generic substitution and medication error. RESULTS: The literature search identified mainly "case report" about the impact of bariatric surgery on so-called "narrow therapeutic window" drugs. We identified 66 informative cases out of a total of 565 cases selected (11%) in the PVDB. Nevertheless, the information does not allow a clear relationship between the occurrence of the ADR and the influence of bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of official information and/or recommendations on medication use in subjects who have undergone bariatric surgery. Apart from under-reporting, ADRs reports remain largely uninformative. Health professional and patients would be awareness for improving, quantitatively and qualitatively the reporting of ADRs in this population.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In France since 2011, report of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has been extended to patients (and patients' associations) who can declare directly ADRs to their regional pharmacovigilance centre. In pharmacovigilance, informativeness of ADRs reports is important to improve signal's detection. The present study was performed to compare the quality of patients', physicians and community pharmacists' reports. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study investigating the quality of patients', physicians and community pharmacies' ADRs reported to Toulouse University PharmacoVigilance Centre (TUPVC) from January 2014 to June 2017. We used mandatory and non-mandatory criteria, as defined by European Medicines Agency. Reports' quality was defined as "satisfactory" when more than 90% of items were completed. We also compared reports' quality according to ADRs seriousness and the used reporting tools (email or the mobile app VigiBip®). RESULTS: The number of reports to TUPVC increased between 2014 and 2016 (+51%) for patients and remained stable for pharmacists and physicians. According to the mandatory criteria, quality of the investigated reports was "satisfactory" (more than 90% of the items filled) whatever the reporter and without significant differences between reporters. For the non-mandatory criteria, clinical description of ADRs and ADRs' outcome were only filled over 90%. Significant differences were observed between the different reporters: community pharmacists informed better clinical description, ADR outcome and concomitant drugs versus both patients and physicians. Physicians informed better medical history and biological data whereas patients informed medical history and other aetiologies better than pharmacists and clinical description of ADRs better than physicians. CONCLUSION: The present study failed to show differences between pharmacies', physicians' and patients' ADRs reports, for the mandatory criteria. However, significant differences were found for non-mandatory criteria with drug data more filled by pharmacists and medical ones more by physicians and patients.
