Risk of atrial fibrillation among bisphosphonate users: a multicenter, population-based, Italian study.

UNLABELLED: Bisphosphonate treatment is used to prevent bone fractures. A controversial association of bisphosphonate use and risk of atrial fibrillation has been reported. In our study, current alendronate users were associated with a higher risk of atrial fibrillation as compared with those who had stopped bisphosphonate (BP) therapy for more than 1 year. INTRODUCTION: Bisphosphonates are widely used to prevent bone fractures. Controversial findings regarding the association between bisphosphonate use and the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of AF in association with BP exposure. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study using the databases of drug-dispensing and hospital discharge diagnoses from five Italian regions. The data cover a period ranging from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2006. The study population comprised new users of bisphosphonates aged 55 years and older. Patients were followed from the first BP prescription until an occurrence of an AF diagnosis (index date, i.e., ID), cancer, death, or the end of the study period, whichever came first. For the risk estimation, any AF case was matched by age and sex to up to 10 controls from the same source population. A conditional logistic regression was performed to obtain the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The BP exposure was classified into current (<90 days prior to ID), recent (91-180), past (181-364), and distant past (≥365) use, with the latter category being used as a reference point. A subgroup analysis by individual BP was then carried out. RESULTS: In comparison with distant past users of BP, current users of BP showed an almost twofold increased risk of AF: odds ratio (OR) = 1.78 and 95% CI = 1.46-2.16. Specifically, alendronate users were mostly associated with AF as compared with distant past use of BP (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.59-2.43). CONCLUSION: In our nested case-control study, current users of BP are associated with a higher risk of atrial fibrillation as compared with those who had stopped BP treatment for more than 1 year.

Adverse cardiovascular events associated with triptans and ergotamines for treatment of migraine: systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Apart from the underlying cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with migraine, both triptans and ergotamines can induce vasoconstriction and potentially increase the risk of serious ischemic events. Because of the low frequency of such events in eligible patients, randomized controlled trials are not exhaustive to assess the drug-related CV risk. Observational studies are, therefore, an essential source of information to clarify this matter of concern. AIM: The aim of this study was to systematically review the available published observational studies investigating the risk of serious CV events in triptan or ergotamine users, as compared to unexposed migraineur controls. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases for cohort or case-control studies up to December 1, 2013. Studies retrieved from CDSR, DARE and HTA databases of the Cochrane Library were used for snowballing. Studies investigating the risk of any CV outcome in patients with a migraine diagnosis and exposed to triptans or ergotamines were considered for inclusion. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed using a random-effects model for studies and outcomes judged eligible for quantitative data synthesis. RESULTS: From a total of 3370 citations retrieved, after duplicate removal and screening, only four studies met the inclusion criteria (three nested case-control analyses and one retrospective cohort study). These studies investigated the risk of different CV outcomes associated with either the recency or the intensity of exposure to the studied drugs. As for the intensity of use, the pooled OR of serious ischemic events was 2.28 (95% CI 1.18-4.41; I (2 )= 0%) for ergotamine use (two studies), whereas for triptans (three studies) it was 0.86 (95% CI 0.52-1.43; I (2 )= 24.5%). Recent use of ergotamines was not significantly associated with any CV outcome (only one available study). Two studies investigated the risk of stroke related to recent triptan use: the first study reported an OR of 0.90 (0.64-1.26), and the second one suggested an increased risk of 2.51 (1.10-5.71). In this case, because of the high degree of heterogeneity, results were not pooled. CONCLUSIONS: To date, few comparative observational studies have investigated the CV safety of migraine-specific drugs in clinical practice. Evidence gathered here suggests that intense consumption of ergotamines may be associated with an increased risk of serious ischemic complications. As for triptans, available studies do not suggest strong CV safety issues, although no firm conclusions can be drawn. In particular, evidence on stroke risk is conflicting. However, if an increase of the absolute stroke risk in recently exposed patients does actually exist, it must be small. Overall, residual uncontrolled confounding factors reduce the confidence in the risk estimates collected from the included studies. Further investigations are needed to better define the risk for rare but serious CV events related to triptan and ergotamine use for treatment of migraine.

The association of pancreatitis with antidiabetic drug use: gaining insight through the FDA pharmacovigilance database.

In patients with diabetes, disease per se, co-morbidities and drugs, including novel agents acting on the incretin system, have all been associated with pancreatitis with controversial data. We investigated the publicly available FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FDA_AERS) database to gain insight into the possible association between antidiabetic agents and pancreatitis. To this aim, a case/non-case method was retrospectively performed on the FDA_AERS database (2004-2009 period). Cases were defined as reports of pancreatitis according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology. All other reports associated with antidiabetics were considered non-cases. The Reporting Odds Ratio (RORs), with corresponding 95% confidential interval (CI) and Mantel-Haenszel corrected P value, was calculated as a measure of disproportionality, with subsequent time-trend analysis. We retrieved 86,938 reports related to antidiabetics, corresponding to 159,226 drug-report combinations: 2,625 cases and 156,601 non-cases. Disproportionality was found only for exenatide (number of cases, 709; ROR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.61-1.92; P MH < 0.001) and sitagliptin (128; 1.86; 1.54-2.24; <0.001). For exenatide, significant disproportionality appeared in the first quarter of 2008 (ROR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.40; P MH < 0.001), soon after the FDA alert; for sitagliptin in the second quarter of 2008 (1.41; 1.05-1.90; 0.021). This temporal analysis found a striking influence of relevant FDA warnings on reporting of pancreatitis (the so-called notoriety bias) and is, therefore, recommended to avoid transforming a pharmacovigilance signal of alert automatically into an alarm. The precise quantification of the risk of pancreatitis associated with antidiabetics deserves assessment through specific disease-based registries.

Three years of experience: the Italian registry and safety data update.

At the end of 2006, a pharmacovigilance program on natalizumab was settled by the Italian Pharmaceutical Agency, and on January 2007, multiple sclerosis patients poorly responding to the immunomodulating therapies or with an aggressive clinical form of disease from onset initiated to be registered and to receive the medication. On February 2010, almost 3,000 cases have been treated with natalizumab. The drop-out rate is 10%. Almost 800 cases received cycles of natalizumab for more than 18 months. One case of PML was reported and other adverse events are similar to those described in phase III studies. The majority of cases remained stable, while in 25% of cases, an improvement of disability was documented.

The pharmacovigilance program on natalizumab in Italy: 2 years of experience.

At the end of 2006 a country-based surveillance program on natalizumab therapy in multiple sclerosis was settled in Italy by a collaborative effort of the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) and a group of experts and neurologists appointed by the National Society of Neurology (SIN). After 2 years, 1,818 patients are registered in the database. The majority of cases (88.6%) failed the therapy with beta interferon or glatiramer acetate and had relapses or accumulated disability during immunomodulating treatment, while 11.4% of patients enrolled in the surveillance study were not previously treated with immunomodulating therapies and had a rapidly evolving clinical course. Almost 10% of the patients treated with natalizumab interrupted, for various different reasons, the therapy. Treatment was well tolerated and side effects were similar to those reported in the registrative studies. The majority of treated cases are stable or ameliorated.

Restenosis after carotid surgery.

On the basis of personal experience and reports in the literature, the paper examines the incidence of restenosis after carotid surgery, its potential morbidity and the results of its treatment. The incidence of stenosis after carotid surgery is described in a series of 253 patients given carotid TEAs in 1992-98 and followed up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months with yearly check-ups thereafter. The group's age range was 64-70 and it included 35% females, 65% males. The initial surgical procedure was a standard TEA with or without patching. Identified by colour Doppler scan, cases of restenoses were examined angiographically in the presence of significant symptoms and haemodynamic disorders. This group constituted 7.5% of the personal series and was classified on the basis of clinical, morphological, topographical and haemodynamic criteria. Only 21% of the restenosis cases required repeat surgery: 2 classic procedures and 2 endovascular operations. No complications ensued and all these patients were symptom-free at 84 months' follow-up. A comparison of these data with reports in the literature confirms an increasing incidence of restenosis after carotid surgery in recent years, which partly reflects more accurate diagnosis. It is concluded that indications to surgery should take greater account of the lesion's histological and clinical characteristics and the increased risk of peripheral nerve damage in repeat surgery. The alternative endovascular approach will need to be examined on the basis of bigger case series and longer, more meaningful follow-ups before any definitive conclusions can be reached though the endovascular approach does seem to represent the future of treatment in this particular sector.