Adherence with regulatory resolutions on prevention of NSAIDS-related gastrointestinal injury in Italy.

Background The rate of gastrointestinal (GI) complications with non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose aspirin (LD-ASA) varies according to risk factors. For at risk patients, the Italian regulatory resolution enforce prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or misoprostol. Objective This study evaluated the consistency with such resolution in patients receiving NSAIDs or LD-ASA and assessed whether patients continued to receive GI protection with PPIs for an adequate time following NSAID discontinuation. Setting An observational retrospective study was conducted using data from Health District of Pisa. Methods The analysis was performed on patients receiving prescription of NSAIDs or LD-ASA, with or without concomitant PPIs or misoprostol, accordingly with the presence of risk factors (2008-2010). Prescription data were retrieved from the database of reimbursement claims for dispensed drugs, while history of past GI diseases was obtained from primary or secondary discharge diagnosis. Main outcome measure The consistency rates of PPI and misoprostol prescriptions with Italian regulatory rules in patients receiving chronic NSAIDs or LD-ASA. Results 6869 patients, receiving NSAIDs or LD-ASA during the observation period, were eligible for the analysis. For NSAIDs or LD-ASA, gastroprotection rates in patients without risk factors were: 8 and 6 % in 2008; 10 and 8 % in 2009; 9 and 6 % in 2010; while the proportions of patients with one or more risk factors not receiving gastroprotection were: 12 and 17 % in 2008; 25 and 22 % in 2009; 15 and 17 % in 2010. In patients discontinuing chronic NSAIDs, 62 % were maintained on protection with PPIs, but only 28 % continued the PPI treatment for an adequate time (60 ± 7 days). Conclusions The present analysis, although restricted to prescription patterns in a single health district, suggests scarce levels of consistency with Italian regulatory resolution on the prophylaxis of GI adverse events associated with chronic NSAIDs or LDASA.

Drug-induced taste and smell alterations: a case/non-case evaluation of an italian database of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and clinical features of drug-related taste and/or smell impairments are currently unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify major drug classes associated with taste and smell alterations reported to the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting database. METHODS: The association between drug and altered taste or smell was investigated by case/non-case methodology. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used as a measure of disproportionality. Cases were defined as patients with at least one ADR related to taste or smell impairments. The non-cases included all patients without any ADRs related to taste or smell alterations. RESULTS: According to the selection criteria, 52 166 reports were included in the analysis. Overall, 182 cases of drug-related taste and/or smell dysfunctions were identified. Statistically significant unadjusted RORs were reported for macrolides (n = 31; 7.1; 95% CI 4.8, 10.5), terbinafine (the only drug reported within the group of antimycotics belonging to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical class D01AE) [n = 17; 76.4; 95% CI 44.0, 132.6], fluoroquinolones (n = 15; 1.7; 95% CI 1.0, 2.8) and protein kinase inhibitors (n = 10; 4.0; 95% CI 2.1, 7.7). When RORs were adjusted for sex and age category, the disproportion remained statistically significant for all of the previously mentioned drug classes. CONCLUSIONS: Taste and/or smell abnormalities are common, sometimes unexpected and often persistent complaints of patients during pharmacological treatments. Physicians should be aware of the impact of these ADRs on patients' quality of life.

Autoimmune hemolytic anemia following MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccine administration: a report of two cases.

OBJECTIVE: To describe 2 cases of autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) following the administration of MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccine. CASE SUMMARY: An 83-year-old white woman developed persistent hyperpyrexia, polyarthralgia, and lower limb hypostenia about 2 days after receiving influenza vaccine. Clinical signs and laboratory evaluations suggested AIHA. The patient was treated with high-dose corticosteroids and immunoglobulins, and her clinical condition improved. A 74-year-old white woman developed severe abdominal pain and asthenia 3 days after the administration of influenza vaccine. Clinical signs and laboratory evaluations disclosed AIHA. She was treated with corticosteroids, rehydration, and blood transfusion; however, she died about 48 hours after hospitalization. DISCUSSION: AIHA has been rarely described following influenza vaccine administration. In the cases described here, the causal relationship between influenza vaccination and the occurrence of AIHA, assessed by means of World Health Organization criteria, was scored as probable. It has been proposed that the mechanism whereby vaccines induce autoimmune responses can be molecular mimicry, although a possible role of other vaccine constituents, with particular regard for adjuvants, such as MF59, can not be excluded. Squalene, a constituent of MF59, has been suggested as a causative agent of autoimmune reactions. However, it is not clear how and under what conditions squalene can cause immune responses. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination may rarely trigger severe AIHA, shortly after vaccine administration. A mechanism of molecular mimicry is probably involved in the development of these reactions, although the possible role of adjuvants can not be excluded. Patients should be instructed to report signs and symptoms of autoimmune disorders occurring in the first weeks after administration of influenza vaccine.

Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during pregnancy and risk of major and cardiovascular malformations: an update.

General consensus exists about the need to avoid drug intake as much as possible during pregnancy due to the lack of thorough evidence about the safety of pharmacologic treatments during gestation for both mothers and fetuses. In this respect, the overall safety profile of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in pregnancy remains unclear. This article reviews current evidence about the safety of each SSRI during pregnancy in order to describe their specific teratogenic potential, with a particular focus on major and cardiovascular malformations, and to verify whether such toxicity can be considered as a class effect. The literature review included controlled studies and meta-analyses (retrieved using PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Medline from January 1966 to May 2010) from which the risk of major and/or cardiovascular malformations associated with a specific SSRI (ie, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, and fluvoxamine) could be estimated. Although there is evidence to support the association between birth defects and first-trimester exposure to paroxetine, findings from the studies reviewed suggest a teratogenic potential of the whole SSRI class, consistent with preclinical evidence. These teratogenic effects are mainly in the heart region, and they are often described as septal defects. It may be suggested that the higher frequency of teratogenic effects reported for paroxetine might depend on specific pharmacologic features of this drug compared with other SSRIs, although it is difficult to test this hypothesis. It is noteworthy that current evidence on SSRI teratogenicity stems from studies affected by several methodological weaknesses (ie, lack of investigations using control groups of untreated depressed mothers, confounding by indication, and recall bias). Accordingly, we are not yet able to rule out the possibility that positive associations, as determined in some studies, result from analyses of poor quality.

Safety concerns associated with the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants during pregnancy: a review.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate about the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants when used during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the available literature on the main safety concerns associated with the use of SSRIs and other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants) during pregnancy. METHODS: English-language reports of analytical and descriptive studies, including case reports, case series, and meta-analyses, were identified through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO (1966-April 2009). The search terms were fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, Citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, reboxetine, duloxetine, SSRI, SNRI, NaSSA, and NRI in association with depression, pregnancy, prenatal exposure, miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, malformation, in utero exposure, and neonatal complications. RESULTS: Paroxetine has been associated with significant risks of major malformation, particularly cardiac defects, when used during pregnancy. Significant associations between maternal exposure to SSRIs and both persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn and a self-limiting neonatal behavioral syndrome have been reported in a number of recent original studies and meta-analyses. Some studies have suggested a relationship between the use of SSRIs or other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants and the occurrence of miscarriage, although these studies had methodologic limitations that affected the strength of the data. Evidence for a possible association between in utero exposure to SSRIs or other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants and alterations in neurobehavioral development, bleeding, and QTc-interval prolongation is currently weak. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that SSRIs and other serotonergic/noradrenergic antidepressants should be used with caution during pregnancy, with careful follow-up of infants exposed to these agents in utero.

Statin-associated psychiatric adverse events: a case/non-case evaluation of an Italian database of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting.

BACKGROUND: The inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase ('statins') are widely prescribed hypolipidaemic drugs, which have been evaluated in several clinical trials involving hundreds of thousands of patients. From a safety perspective, both clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance have demonstrated that statins are generally well tolerated, with rare serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that affect mainly muscle, liver and kidney. However, recent interest has been focused on a potential risk of psychiatric ADRs associated with statins, including memory loss, depression, suicidality, aggression and antisocial behaviour. Special attention is currently being paid to the potential for statin-induced sleep disorders. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the hypothesis that statins may be associated with psychiatric adverse events using quantitative and qualitative signal analysis. METHODS: The Interregional Group of Pharmacovigilance database holds reports of suspected ADRs submitted since 1988 from eight Italian regions. In the present analysis, only reports ranked at least 'possible', according to WHO causality assessment criteria, were considered. Association between statins and psychiatric events was assessed by the case/non-case methodology, calculating the ADR reporting odds ratio (ROR) as a measure of disproportionality. Cases were defined as patients with at least one reported ADR combined with the system organ class (SOC) 'psychiatric disorders'. The non-cases comprised all patients who did not experience an ADR related to the SOC 'psychiatric disorders'. Index reports comprised all ADR reports involving at least one statin, while all ADR reports not involving statins as suspected drugs were used as controls. RESULTS: According to selection criteria, 35,314 reports were included in the analysis. A total of 71 psychiatric preferred terms combined with statins were identified in 60 reports. Among them, 14 reports (23.3%) noted a positive rechallenge. Both the unadjusted (0.8; 95% CI 0.6, 1.1) and adjusted ROR (0.7; 95% CI 0.6, 1.0) suggested a lower rate of reports of psychiatric events for statins as a whole class compared with all other drugs, although the difference was not significant. The five most frequently reported psychiatric events combined with statins were insomnia, somnolence, agitation, confusion and hallucination. Only insomnia was reported with higher frequency for statins compared with all other drugs (ROR = 3.3; 95% CI 1.9, 5.7), while confusion was reported with a lower frequency (ROR = 0.4; 95% CI 0.1, 0.9). Amongst statins available in Italy, only simvastatin (ROR = 0.5; 95% CI 0.2, 0.9) showed a significantly lower rate of reports of psychiatric events compared with all other drugs together. CONCLUSION: A relatively small number of possible statin-associated psychiatric ADRs have been found in our database. No significant risks for a higher overall reporting of psychiatric ADRs associated with statins were identified in comparison with all other drugs combined. However, statin-associated insomnia resulted in a significant ROR that requires further investigation.