Seriousness, preventability, and burden impact of reported adverse drug reactions in Lombardy emergency departments: a retrospective 2-year characterization.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in emergency departments (EDs) and carry out a thorough characterization of these to assess preventability, seriousness that required hospitalization, subsequent 30-day mortality, and economic burden. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of data from an active pharmacovigilance project at 32 EDs in the Lombardy region collected between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011. Demographic, clinical, and pharmacological data on patients admitted to EDs were collected by trained and qualified monitors, and deterministic record linkage was performed to estimate hospitalizations. Pharmacoeconomic analyses were based on Diagnosis-Related Group reimbursement. RESULTS: 8,862 ADRs collected with an overall prevalence rate of 3.5 per 1,000 visits. Of all ADRs, 42% were probably/definitely preventable and 46.4% were serious, 15% required hospitalization, and 1.5% resulted in death. The System Organ Classes most frequently associated with ADRs were: skin and subcutaneous tissue, gastrointestinal, respiratory thoracic and mediastinal, and nervous system disorders. The most common Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classes involved in admissions were J (anti-infectives and immunomodulating agents), B (blood and blood-forming organs), and N (nervous system). Older age, yellow and red triage, higher number of concomitantly taken drugs, and previous attendance in ED for the same ADR were significantly associated with an increased risk of hospitalization. The total cost associated with ADR management was €5,184,270, with a mean cost per patient of €585. Fifty-eight percent of the economic burden was defined as probably/definitely preventable. CONCLUSION: ADRs are a serious health/economic issue in EDs. This assessment provides a thorough estimation of their seriousness, preventability, and burden impact in a large population from a representative European region.

Hepatotoxicity related to agomelatine and other new antidepressants: a case/noncase approach with information from the Portuguese, French, Spanish, and Italian pharmacovigilance systems.

Antidepressants have been associated with a low incidence of idiosyncratic hepatic injury. Some of them, nefazodone or amineptine, were observed to induce severe hepatic injury and withdrawn from the market. Recently, some cases of this severe condition have been reported in association with agomelatine use. Therefore, the objective of this study is to learn the risk of hepatic damage with agomelatine as compared with other new antidepressants. We took data from the Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese pharmacovigilance system databases. A case/noncase approach to assess the strength of the association between whichever antidepressant and hepatotoxicity was performed; cases were defined as reports of hepatotoxicity; noncases were reports of all reactions other than hepatotoxicity. Exposure was the recording of a new antidepressant in a report, whether or not it was suspected of causing the reaction. During the period surveyed, 3300 cases of hepatotoxicity were collected for the antidepressants assessed. They represent 10.3% of all cases collected for these drugs; the corresponding figure for all drugs was 6.0%. Meanwhile, 63 cases of hepatotoxicity associated with agomelatine were collected since its introduction until the end of the period studied; they account for a percentage of 14.6. Agomelatine was statistically associated with hepatotoxicity in Spain [reporting odds ratio (ROR), 4.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-9.7)], France (ROR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.5-3.7]), and Italy (ROR, 5.1 [95% CI, 1.7-14.0]). Current results support the idea of agomelatine to be related to a higher hepatotoxicity risk. Physicians should consider early discontinuation if the condition is suspected; health authorities should promptly explore the best regulatory actions to be taken.

Fluvastatin and hepatic reactions: a signal from spontaneous reporting in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Signal detection is a crucial element in recognising new adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as soon as possible. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors ('statins'), the most potent cholesterol-lowering drugs, are generally well tolerated but can occasionally lead to liver toxicity. Pre- and postmarketing studies on statins revealed an incidence of 0.1-3% elevation in hepatic transaminase levels. However, these elevations are asymptomatic, reversible, dose related or probably due to other causes. Postmarketing studies clearly showed the lack of evidence of hepatotoxicity from statins, apart from some isolated case reports of serious hepatic damage described in the literature. It is still unclear whether serious hepatic reactions are dose related and more frequent than the expected rate in the general population. OBJECTIVE: In this study, the hypothesis that fluvastatin could cause serious liver injuries more than the other statins is investigated, in the light of a quantitative and qualitative signal analysis, drug consumption data and evidence from the literature. METHODS: The Italian Interregional Group of Pharmacovigilance (Gruppo Interregionale di Farmacovigilanza; GIF) is an example of signal detection within the Italian spontaneous ADR reporting system. The GIF database holds reports of suspected ADRs submitted by five Italian pharmacovigilance regional centres. In the GIF database, all reports of suspected ADRs are classified according to the WHO criteria for causality assessment. The reactions are coded according to the WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology and classified as serious or non-serious events on the basis of the WHO Critical Term List. Every 6 months the GIF database is analysed to extract potential signals through a qualitative case-by-case analysis and using a quantitative methodology called proportional reporting ratio (PRR). This methodology permitted us to identify the potential signal 'fluvastatin and hepatic reactions'. RESULTS: At 31 December 2004, the GIF database contained 35 757 reports with an annual reporting rate of 170 reports per million inhabitants. We found a total of 1260 reports of ADRs related to statins, including 178 of hepatic reactions. Sixty-nine reports were attributed to fluvastatin, which showed the highest PRR in comparison with the other statins. Fluvastatin was associated with 33 serious reactions, mainly hepatitis and cholestatic hepatitis. The number of reports of severe hepatotoxicity associated with fluvastatin started to increase from 2002. About half of them did not report other suspected or concomitant drugs and in one third the hepatotoxicity occurred after <1 month of therapy. Twenty-seven out of 33 patients were female, and fluvastatin was administered at 80 mg/day in 81% of cases reporting complete data on drug dosage. CONCLUSION: In the literature, serious hepatic reactions are rarely described in patients taking statins; however, data gathered by GIF suggest that cases of hepatotoxicity are reported more often than expected. In addition, GIF data seem to reveal that fluvastatin is more likely to cause hepatic reactions than the other statins. However, this is a preliminary signal and future evaluations are certainly needed to confirm it and to quantify this possible risk.

Drug-induced anaphylaxis : case/non-case study based on an italian pharmacovigilance database.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the number of cases of anaphylaxis reported in association with different classes of drugs and compare it with other reports contained in the same database. METHODS: The data were obtained from a database containing all of the spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) coming from the Italian regions of Emilia Romagna, Lombardy and the Veneto, which are the main contributors to the Italian spontaneous surveillance system. The ADRs reported between January 1990 and December 2003 with a causality assessment of certainly, probably or possibly drug related (according to the WHO criteria) were analysed using a case/non-case design. The cases were defined as the reactions already coded by the WHO preferred terms of 'anaphylactic shock' or 'anaphylactoid reaction' (this last term also included anaphylactic reaction) and those with a time of event onset that suggested an allergic reaction and involved at least two of the skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, CNS or cardiovascular systems; the non-cases were all of the other ADR reports. The frequency of the association between anaphylaxis and the suspected drug in comparison with the frequency of anaphylaxis associated to all of the other drugs was calculated using the ADR reporting odds ratio (ROR) as a measure of disproportionality. RESULTS: Our database contained 744 cases (including 307 cases of anaphylactic shock with 10 deaths) and 27 512 non-cases. The percentage of anaphylaxis cases reported in inpatients was higher than that among outpatients (59.1% vs 40.9%). This distribution is significantly different from that of the other ADR reports that mainly refer to outpatients. After intravenous drug administrations, anaphylactic shock cases were more frequent than anaphylactoid reactions or other ADRs, but more than one-third of these reactions were caused by an oral drug. Blood substitutes and radiology contrast agents had the highest RORs. Among the systemic antibacterial agents, anaphylaxis was disproportionally reported more often for penicillins, quinolones, cephalosporins and glycopeptides, but diclofenac was the only NSAID with a significant ROR. As a category, vaccines had a significantly lower ROR, thus indicating that anaphylaxis is reported proportionally less than other ADRs. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a severe ADR that may also occur with commonly used drugs. It represents 2.7% of all of the ADRs reported in an Italian spontaneous reporting database.