Reported Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions after Intravenous Iron Administration in the European Economic Area (EEA) Before and After Implementation of Risk Minimization Measures.

INTRODUCTION: Severe hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) such as anaphylaxis are of great clinical concern because of their life-threatening potential. The adverse events attributable to intravenous iron products include HSRs. An investigation by the European Medicines Agency presented in late 2013 resulted in the implementation of risk minimization measures (RMMs). OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the number of severe HSRs reported for intravenous iron substances related to exposure for the 4-year periods before and after this implementation. METHODS: This was a retrospective pharmacoepidemiologic study with a case-population design. We obtained information from the safety surveillance database EudraVigilance on spontaneously reported severe HSRs using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms "anaphylactic reaction/shock" and "anaphylactoid reaction/shock". Exposure was estimated using IQVIA MIDAS sales data in European economic area countries. RESULTS: Reporting rates for individual products were heterogenous, and the implementation of RMMs appeared to have no clear impact. Reporting rates remained low for the full study period for iron sucrose (0.03-0.20) and ferric gluconate (0.02-0.14) and were higher at the beginning and lower at the end of the study period for ferric carboxymaltose (1.47-0.18). No clear trend was detected for iron dextran (range 0.22-2.80) and iron (III) isomaltoside 1000 (range 0-7.94). CONCLUSIONS: Future research is needed to investigate whether the wide variability in reporting rates for severe HSRs associated with these intravenous iron products are due to potential differences in the safety profiles of these substances.

Evaluation of the Reported Rates of Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions Associated with Ferric Carboxymaltose and Iron (III) Isomaltoside 1000 in Europe Based on Data from EudraVigilance and VigiBase™ between 2014 and 2017.

INTRODUCTION: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are among the known adverse events of intravenous (i.v.) iron products. Of these, particularly severe HSRs such as anaphylaxis are of great clinical concern due to their life-threatening potential. METHODS: This was a retrospective pharmacoepidemiological study with a case-population design evaluating the number of reported severe HSRs following administration of the two i.v. iron products-ferric carboxymaltose and iron (III) isomaltoside 1000-in relation to exposure in European countries from January 2014 to December 2017. Exposure to both products was estimated using IQVIA MIDAS sales data in European countries. Information on spontaneously reported severe HSRs was obtained from and analysed separately for the two established safety surveillance databases EudraVigilance and VigiBase™ using the MedDRA® Preferred Terms anaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic shock, anaphylactoid reaction and anaphylactoid shock associated with administration of either product. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, the reporting rate of severe HSRs per 100,000 defined daily doses (100 mg dose equivalents of iron) varied from 0.3 to 0.5 for ferric carboxymaltose and from 2.4 to 5.0 for iron (III) isomaltoside 1000. The reporting rate ratio for iron (III) isomaltoside 1000 versus ferric carboxymaltose was between 5.6 (95% CI 3.5-9.0) and 16.2 (95% CI 9.4-27.8). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that iron (III) isomaltoside 1000 is associated with a higher reporting rate of severe HSRs related to estimated exposure than ferric carboxymaltose in European countries. Future research investigating the occurrence of severe HSRs associated with i.v. ferric carboxymaltose and iron (III) isomaltoside 1000 is needed to broaden the evidence for benefit-risk assessment.

Selecting Patients with Ovarian Cancer for Germline BRCA Mutation Testing: Findings from Guidelines and a Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: One of the most significant risk factors for the development of ovarian cancer (OC) is a genetic mutation in BRCA1 (breast cancer gene 1) or BRCA2. Here we describe the impact of previous and current guidance on BRCA testing practices and provide evidence about which characteristics best identify patients with OC and an underlying germline BRCA mutation. METHODS: A search was conducted for guidelines recommending genetic testing to identify constitutional pathogenic mutations in the BRCA genes. In addition, a systematic literature search of studies published in 2003-2015 was performed to assess BRCA mutation frequency in population-based OC patients unselected for patient characteristics (personal history, family history, and Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity) and to describe the association of patient characteristics with BRCA mutation. Exclusively, studies assessing epithelial OC or invasive epithelial OC with full-gene screening of both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 15 guidelines recommending genetic testing for OC patients, only 5 do not require co-occurrence of specific patient or family characteristics. Twenty-two full publications were identified that assessed germline BRCA mutation frequency in women with OC, utilizing a range of different full mutation detection methods. Germline BRCA mutation prevalence in patients with OC was 5.8-24.8%. Using criteria recommended in guidelines that are yet to be updated, we estimated that 27.5% of all germline BRCA mutations present in patients with OC may be missed because patients do not meet appropriate criteria. CONCLUSION: With the availability of BRCA mutation-targeted therapies, identification of patients with OC with germline BRCA mutations has potential therapeutic consequences. For identified gene carriers, predictive testing to allow cancer prevention strategies, including bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, provides wider benefit to identifying such gene carriers. Updating guidelines will increase the opportunity for targeted treatment among patients and risk reduction in relatives. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.