Prescribing cascades in ambulatory care: A structured synthesis of evidence.

The strength of evidence for specific ambulatory care prescribing cascades, in which a marker drug is used to treat an adverse event caused by an index drug, has not been well characterized. To perform a structured, systematic, and transparent review of the evidence supporting ambulatory care prescribing cascades. Ninety-four potential prescribing cascades identified through a previously published systematic review. Systematic search of the literature to further characterize prescribing cascades. (1) Grading of evidence based on observational studies investigating associations between index and marker drugs, including: Level I-strong evidence [i.e. multiple high-quality studies]; Level II-moderate evidence [i.e. single high-quality study]; Level III-fair evidence [no high-quality studies but one or more moderate-quality studies]; and Level IV-poor evidence [other]. (2) Listing of the adverse event associated with the index drug in the product's United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label. (3) Synthesis of the evidence supporting mechanisms linking index drugs and associated adverse events. Of 99 potential cascades, 94 were supported by one or more confirmatory observational studies and were therefore included in this review. The 94 cascades related to 30 types of adverse drug reactions affecting 10 different anatomic/physiologic systems and were investigated by a total of 88 confirmatory studies, including prescription sequential symmetry analysis (n = 51), cohort (n = 30), and case-control (n = 7) studies. Overall, the evidence from observational studies was strong for 18 (19.1%) prescribing cascades, moderate for 61 (64.9%), fair for 13 (13.8%), and poor for 2 (2.1%). Although the evidence supporting mechanisms that link index drugs and associated adverse events was variable, FDA labels included information about the adverse event associated with the index drug for most (n = 86) but not all of the 94 prescribing cascades. Although we identified 18 of 94 prescribing cascades supported by strong clinical evidence and most adverse events associated with index drugs are included in FDA label, the evidentiary basis for prescribing cascades varies, with many requiring further evidence of clinical relevance.

Clinical utility of overviews on adverse events of pharmacological interventions.

BACKGROUND: Overviews (i.e., systematic reviews of systematic reviews, meta-reviews, umbrella reviews) are a relatively new type of evidence synthesis. Among others, one reason to conduct an overview is to investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with a healthcare intervention. Overviews aim to provide easily accessible information for healthcare decision-makers including clinicians. We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of overviews investigating AEs. METHODS: We used a sample of 27 overviews exclusively investigating drug-related adverse events published until 2021 identified in a prior project. We defined clinical utility as the extent to which overviews are perceived to be useful in clinical practice. Each included overview was assigned to one of seven pharmacological experts with expertise on the topic of the overview. The clinical utility and value of these overviews were determined using a self-developed assessment tool. This included four open-ended questions and a ranking of three clinical utility statements completed by clinicians. We calculated frequencies for the ranked clinical utility statements and coded the answers to the open-ended questions using an inductive approach. RESULTS: The overall agreement with the provided statements was high. According to the assessments, 67% of the included overviews generated new knowledge. In 93% of the assessments, the overviews were found to add value to the existing literature. The overviews were rated as more useful than the individual included systematic reviews (SRs) in 85% of the assessments. The answers to the open-ended questions revealed two key aspects of clinical utility in the included overviews. Firstly, it was considered useful that they provide a summary of available evidence (e.g., along with additional assessments, or across different populations, or in different settings that have not been evaluated together in the included SRs). Secondly, it was found useful if overviews conducted a new meta-analysis to answer specific research questions that had not been answered previously. CONCLUSIONS: Overviews on drug-related AEs are considered valuable for clinical practice by clinicians. They can make available evidence on AEs more accessible and provide a comprehensive view of available evidence. As the role of overviews evolves, investigations such as this can identify areas of value.

Impact of timing and combination of different BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 basic and booster vaccinations on humoral immunogenicity and reactogenicity in adults.

In this single-center observational study with 1,206 participants, we prospectively evaluated SARS-CoV-2-antibodies (anti-S RBD) and vaccine-related adverse drug reactions (ADR) after basic and booster immunization with BNT162b2- and ChAdOx1-S-vaccines in four vaccination protocols: Homologous BNT162b2-schedule with second vaccination at either three or six weeks, homologous ChAdOx1-S-vaccination or heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2-schedule, each at 12 weeks. All participants received a BNT162b2 booster. Blood samples for anti-S RBD analysis were obtained multiple times over a period of four weeks to six months after basic vaccination, immediately before, and up to three months after booster vaccination. After basic vaccination, the homologous ChAdOx1-S-group showed the lowest anti-S RBD levels over six months, while the heterologous BNT162b2-ChAdOx1-S-group demonstrated the highest anti-S levels, but failed to reach level of significance compared with the homologous BNT162b2-groups. Antibody levels were higher after an extended vaccination interval with BNT162b2. A BNT162b2 booster increased anti-S-levels 11- to 91-fold in all groups, with the homologous ChAdOx1-S-cohort demonstrated the highest increase in antibody levels. No severe or serious ADR were observed. The findings suggest that a heterologous vaccination schedule or prolonged vaccination interval induces robust humoral immunogenicity with good tolerability. Extending the time to boost-immunization is key to both improving antibody induction and reducing ADR rate.

Prescribing Cascades: How to Detect Them, Prevent Them, and Use Them Appropriately.

BACKGROUND: A prescribing cascade is the treatment of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) with another drug. In this review, we discuss (a) the different types of prescribing cascade and (b) the measures that can be taken so that they will be recognized and dealt with appropriately, both in the hospital and in the outpatient setting. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search. RESULTS: The literature distinguishes intentional from unintentional prescribing cascades, and appropriate from inappropriate ones. We further distinguish prophylactic from therapeutic prescribing cascades and draw a line between those that are necessary and those that are merely appropriate. The following main questions are essential for dealing with prescribing cascades appropriately: (1) Did the precipitating drug cause a clinically relevant ADR or risk of an ADR? (2) Is the precipitating drug still indicated? (3) Can an ADR be avoided by altering the treatment with the precipitating drug, or by (4) switching to another drug instead? (5) Can the drug used to treat the ADR actually affect it beneficially? (6) Do the benefits of the prescribing cascade outweigh its risks? CONCLUSION: Prescribing cascades are not problematic in themselves; on the contrary, they are sometimes a necessary part of good prescribing practice. There is still a lack of practically implementable instruments to help physicians detect prescribing cascades reliably, assess them properly, and put them to appropriate use.

Development of a deprescribing manual for frail older people for use in the COFRAIL study and in primary care.

Introduction: Many older adults are affected by multimorbidity and subsequent polypharmacy which is associated with adverse outcomes. This is especially relevant for frail older patients. Polypharmacy may be reduced via deprescribing. As part of the complex intervention in the COFRAIL study, we developed a deprescribing manual to be used by general practitioners (GPs) in family conferences, in which GPs, patients and caregivers jointly discuss treatments. Methods: We selected indications with a high prevalence in older adults in primary care (e.g. diabetes mellitus, hypertension) and conducted a literature search to identify deprescribing criteria for these indications. We additionally reviewed clinical practice guidelines. Based on the extracted information, we created a deprescribing manual which was then piloted in an expert workshop and in family conferences with volunteer patients according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study protocol. Results: Initially, 13 indications/topics were selected. The literature search identified deprescribing guides, reviews and clinical trials as well as lists of potentially inappropriate medication and systematic reviews on the risk and benefits of specific drugs and drug classes in older patients. After piloting and revisions, the deprescribing manual now covers 11 indications/topics. In each chapter, patient- and medication-related deprescribing criteria, monitoring and communication strategies, and information about concerns related to the use of specific drugs in older patients are provided. Discussion: We found varying deprescribing strategies in the literature, which we consolidated in our deprescribing manual. Whether this approach leads to successful deprescribing in family conferences is being investigated in the cluster-randomised controlled COFRAIL study. Plain Language Summary: Development of a manual to help doctors to identify which medications can be withdrawn Many older adults suffer from chronic diseases and take multiple medications concurrently. This can lead to side effects and other undesired events. We developed a manual to help doctors identify which medications can be withdrawn, so that they can discuss this with their patients. This manual was used in the COFRAIL study where doctors, patients and caregivers met in family conferences to discuss their preferences and decide together how future treatments should be handled. The manual contains information on common medications, symptoms and diseases in older patients such as diabetes and high blood pressure. Before the manual was used in the study, it was tested by volunteer patients and their doctors and caregivers to make sure that it is user-friendly.

A review found heterogeneous approaches and insufficient reporting in overviews on adverse events.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate reporting and methodological characteristics of overviews on adverse (drug-associated) events (AEs) of pharmacological interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to May 17, 2021 for overviews exclusively investigating AEs of pharmacological interventions. We extracted general, reporting, and methodological characteristics and analyzed data descriptively. RESULTS: We included 27 overviews, 70% of which were published in 2016 or later. The most common nomenclature in the title was "overview" (56%), followed by "umbrella review" (26%). The median number of included systematic reviews (SRs) in each overview was 15 (interquartile range 7-34). Study selection methods were reported in 52%, methods for data extraction in 67%, and methods for critical appraisal in 63% of overviews. An assessment of methodological quality of included SRs was performed in 70% of overviews. Only 22% of overviews reported strategies for dealing with overlapping SRs. An assessment of the certainty of the evidence was performed in 33% of overviews. CONCLUSION: To ensure methodological rigor, authors of overviews on AEs should follow available guidance for the conduct and reporting of overviews.

Major bleeding in users of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: A pooled analysis of results from multiple population-based cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the risk of major bleeding in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) users (overall and by class) versus vitamin K antagonist (VKA) users, using health care databases from four European countries and six provinces in Canada. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed according to a similar protocol. First-users of VKAs or DOACs with a diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were included. The main outcome of interest was major bleeding and secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH). Incidence rates of events per 1000 person years were calculated. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model. Exposure and confounders were measured and analysed in a time-dependant way. Risk estimates were pooled using a random effect model. RESULTS: 421 523 patients were included. The risk of major bleeding for the group of DOACs compared to VKAs showed a pooled HR of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.87-1.02). Rivaroxaban showed a modestly increased risk (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06-1.16). Apixaban and dabigatran showed a decreased risk of respectively HR 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69-0.84) and HR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that the risk of major bleeding of DOACs compared to VKAs is not increased when combining all DOACs. However, we observed a modest higher risk of major bleeding for rivaroxaban, whereas for apixaban and dabigatran lower risks of major bleeding were observed compared to VKAs.

Comparing Predictions of a PBPK Model for Cyclosporine With Drug Levels From Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

This study compared simulations of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model implemented for cyclosporine with drug levels from therapeutic drug monitoring to evaluate the predictive performance of a PBPK model in a clinical population. Based on a literature search model parameters were determined. After calibrating the model using the pharmacokinetic profiles of healthy volunteers, 356 cyclosporine trough levels of 32 renal transplant outpatients were predicted based on their biometric parameters. Model performance was assessed by calculating absolute and relative deviations of predicted and observed trough levels. The median absolute deviation was 6 ng/ml (interquartile range: 30 to 31 ng/ml, minimum = -379 ng/ml, maximum = 139 ng/ml). 86% of predicted cyclosporine trough levels deviated less than twofold from observed values. The high intra-individual variability of observed cyclosporine levels was not fully covered by the PBPK model. Perspectively, consideration of clinical and additional patient-related factors may improve the model's performance. In summary, the current study has shown that PBPK modeling may offer valuable contributions for pharmacokinetic research in clinical drug therapy.

Comparing risk of major bleeding between users of different oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has broadened the treatment arsenal for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but observational studies on the benefit-risk balance of DOACs compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are needed. The aim of this study was to characterize the risk of major bleeding in DOAC users using longitudinal data collected from electronic health care databases from 4 different EU-countries analysed with a common study protocol. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted among new users (≥18 years) of DOACs or VKAs with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation using data from the UK, Spain, Germany and Denmark. The incidence of major bleeding events (overall and by bleeding site) was compared between current use of DOACs and VKAs. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjust for confounders. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Overall, 251 719 patients were included across the 4 study cohorts (mean age ~75 years, % females between 41.3 and 54.3%), with overall hazard ratios of major bleeding risk for DOACs vs VKAs ranging between 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90) in Denmark and 1.13 (95% CI 1.02-1.25) in the UK. When stratifying according to the bleeding site, risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was increased by 48-67% in dabigatran users and 30-50% for rivaroxaban users compared to VKA users in all data sources except Denmark. Compared to VKAs, apixaban was not associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in all data sources and seemed to be associated with the lowest risk of major bleeding events compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

Prescribers' compliance with summary of product characteristics of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban-A European comparative drug utilization study.

Despite a tremendous increase of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) prescriptions in recent years, only few data is available analysing prescribers' adherence to Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). We aimed to assess adherence to registered indications, contraindications, special warnings/precautions, and potential drug-drug interactions for three DOAC compounds (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) in six databases of five European countries (The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, and Germany). We included adult patients (≥18 years) initiating DOACs between 2008 and 2015. For several SmPC items, broad definitions were used due to ambiguous SmPC terms or lacking data in some databases. Within the study period, a DOAC was initiated in 407 576 patients (rivaroxaban: 240 985 (59.1%), dabigatran: 95 303 (23.4%), and apixaban: 71 288 (17.5%)). In 2015, non-valvular atrial fibrillation was the most common indication (>60% in most databases). For the whole study period, a substantial variation between the databases was found regarding the proportion of patients with at least one contraindication (inter-database range [IDR]: 8.2%-55.7%), with at least one special warning/precaution (IDR: 35.8%-75.2%) and with at least one potential drug-drug interaction (IDR: 22.4%-54.1%). In 2015, the most frequent contraindication was "malignant neoplasm" (IDR: 0.7%-21.3%) whereas the most frequent special warning/precaution was "prescribing to the elderly" (≥75 years; IDR: 25.0%-66.4%). The most common single compound class interaction was "concomitant use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs" (IDR: 3.0%-25.3%). Contraindications, special warnings/precautions, and potential drug-drug interactions were present in a relevant number of new DOAC users. Due to broad definitions used for some SmPC terms, overall proportions for contraindications are prone to overestimation. However, for unambiguous SmPC terms documented in the databases sufficiently, the respective estimates can be considered valid. Differences between databases might be related to "true" differences in prescription behaviour, but could also be partially due to differences in database characteristics.

Loxapine for Treatment of Patients With Refractory, Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathic Pain: A Prematurely Terminated Pilot Study Showing Efficacy But Limited Tolerability.

Neuropathic pain is a debilitating and commonly treatment-refractory condition requiring novel therapeutic options. Accumulating preclinical studies indicate that the potassium channel Slack (KNa1.1) contributes to the processing of neuropathic pain, and that Slack activators, when injected into mice, ameliorate pain-related hypersensitivity. However, whether Slack activation might reduce neuropathic pain in humans remains elusive. Here, we evaluated the tolerability and analgesic efficacy of loxapine, a first-generation antipsychotic drug and Slack activator, in neuropathic pain patients. We aimed to treat 12 patients with chronic chemotherapy-induced, treatment-refractory neuropathic pain (pain severity ≥ 4 units on an 11-point numerical rating scale) in a monocentric, open label, proof-of-principle study. Patients received loxapine orally as add-on analgesic in a dose-escalating manner (four treatment episodes for 14 days, daily dose: 20, 30, 40, or 60 mg loxapine) depending on tolerability and analgesic efficacy. Patient-reported outcomes of pain intensity and/or relief were recorded daily. After enrolling four patients, this study was prematurely terminated due to adverse events typically occurring with first-generation antipsychotic drugs that were reported by all patients. In two patients receiving loxapine for at least two treatment episodes, a clinically relevant analgesic effect was found at a daily dose of 20-30 mg of loxapine. Another two patients tolerated loxapine only for a few days. Together, our data further support the hypothesis that Slack activation might be a novel strategy for neuropathic pain therapy. However, loxapine is no valid treatment option for painful polyneuropathy due to profound dopamine and histamine receptor-related side effects. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02820519.

Incidence of direct oral anticoagulant use in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and characteristics of users in 6 European countries (2008-2015): A cross-national drug utilization study.

AIMS: To estimate the incidence of direct oral anticoagulant drug (DOAC) use in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to describe user and treatment characteristics in 8 European healthcare databases representing 6 European countries. METHODS: Longitudinal drug utilization study from January 2008 to December 2015. A common protocol approach was applied. Annual period incidences and direct standardisation by age and sex were performed. Dose adjustment related to change in age and by renal function as well as concomitant use of potentially interacting drugs were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 186 405 new DOAC users (age ≥18 years) were identified. Standardized incidences varied from 1.93-2.60 and 0.11-8.71 users/10 000 (2011-2015) for dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively, and from 0.01-8.12 users/10 000 (2012-2015) for apixaban. In 2015, the DOAC incidence ranged from 9 to 28/10 000 inhabitants in SIDIAP (Spain) and DNR (Denmark) respectively. There were differences in population coverage among the databases. Only 1 database includes the total reference population (DNR) while others are considered a population representative sample (CPRD, BIFAP, SIDIAP, EGB, Mondriaan). They also varied in the type of drug data source (administrative, clinical). Dose adjustment ranged from 4.6% in BIFAP (Spain) to 15.6% in EGB (France). Concomitant use of interacting drugs varied between 16.4% (SIDIAP) and 70.5% (EGB). Cardiovascular comorbidities ranged from 25.4% in Mondriaan (The Netherlands) to 82.9% in AOK Nordwest (Germany). CONCLUSION: Overall, apixaban and rivaroxaban increased its use during the study period while dabigatran decreased. There was variability in patient characteristics such as comorbidities, potentially interacting drugs and dose adjustment. (EMA/2015/27/PH).

A proof-of-concept trial of HELIOX with different fractions of helium in a human study modeling upper airway obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Helium in oxygen (HELIOX) can relieve airway obstruction and lower the work of breathing because it increases the threshold at which turbulent gas flow is induced. Less turbulent and more laminar flow lowers the work of breathing. According to guidelines, the fraction of Helium in HELIOX should be maximized (e.g. to 79%). Here, we investigate whether HELIOX with less than 60% of Helium is able to relieve the sensation of dyspnea in healthy volunteers. METHODS: 44 volunteers underwent resistive loading breathing different gases (medical air and HELIOX with a fraction of 25%, 50% or 75% helium in oxygen) in a double-blinded crossover design. Subjects rated their degree of dyspnea (primary outcome parameter) and the variability of noninvasively measured systolic blood pressure was assessed. RESULTS: Dyspnea was significantly reduced by HELIOX-containing mixtures with a fraction of helium of 25% or more. Similarly, blood pressure variability was reduced significantly even with helium 25% during respiratory loading with the higher load, whereas with the smaller load an effect could only be obtained with the highest helium fraction of 75%. CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, HELIOX with less than 60% of helium in oxygen decreased the sensation of dyspnea and blood pressure variability, a surrogate parameter for airway obstruction. Therefore, higher oxygen fractions might be applied without losing the helium-related benefits for the treatment of upper airway obstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration with clinical trials (NCT00788788) and EMA (EudraCT number: 2006-005289-37).

A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop and validate an adequate tool to evaluate the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews assessing drug adverse events. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed a structured risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, cohort, case-control and nested case-control studies, and systematic reviews focusing on drug safety. Face and content validity was judged by three experienced reviewers. Interrater and intrarater reliability were determined using 20 randomly selected studies, assessed by three other independent reviewers including one performing a 3-week retest. RESULTS: The developed checklist examines eight domains: study design and objectives, selection bias, attrition, adverse events information bias, other information bias, statistical methods to control confounding, other statistical methods, and conflicts of interest. The total number of questions varied from 10 to 32 depending on the study design. Interrater and intrarater agreements were fair with Kendall's W of 0.70 and 0.74, respectively. Median time to complete the checklist was 8.5 minutes. CONCLUSION: The developed checklist showed face and content validity and acceptable reliability to assess the risk of bias for studies analyzing drug adverse events. Hence, it might be considered as a novel useful tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on drug safety.

Tiotropium Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®): real-life usage and TIOSPIR trial generalizability.

AIM: Two inhaler devices (Respimat® and HandiHaler®) are available for tiotropium, a long acting anticholinergic agent. We aimed to analyze drug utilization, off-label usage and generalizability of the TIOSPIR trial results for both devices. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years exhibiting at least one documented prescription of tiotropium in the database of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany, were included (years 2004-2008). Annual period prevalence rates (PPRs) were calculated stratified by age, gender and inhaler devices. Off-label usage (patients lacking a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnosis) and the proportion of patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the TIOSPIR trial were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2008, PPRs increased and varied between 49.2 and 74.5 per 10 000 persons for HandiHaler® and between 1.5 and 9.3 per 10 000 persons for Respimat®. Small differences regarding patient characteristics existed between the two inhaler devices. Only about 30% (HandiHaler® 32.1%, Respimat® 30.0%) of the database patients receiving tiotropium could be theoretically included in the TIOSPIR trial. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the two tiotropium devices, no clinically relevant differences regarding patient and prescribing characteristics were revealed. Results of the TIOSPIR trial were generalizable only to a minority of our study patients, underlining the need for real-life data.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Macrolides- and Amoxicillin/Clavulanate-induced Acute Liver Injury.

Antibacterials are frequently associated with idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI). The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of macrolides and amoxicillin/clavulanate (AMC) on DILI. We conducted a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) with studies retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library Plus, Web of Knowledge, clinicaltrials.gov, Livertox and Toxline (1980-2014). We searched for macrolides, AMC and MeSH and synonym terms for DILI. We included all study designs except case reports/series, all population ages and studies with a placebo/non-user comparator. We summarized the evidence with a random-effects MA. Quality of the studies was appraised with a checklist developed for SR of adverse effects. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed with different exploratory tools. We finally included 10 (two randomized clinical trials, six case-control, one cohort and one case-population studies) and 9 (case-population excluded) articles in the SR and MA, respectively. The overall summary relative risk of DILI for macrolides was 2.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.81-4.47], p < 0.0001, I(2) = 57%. Three studies were perceived to be missing in the area of low statistical significance. Year of study and selected exposure window partly explained the variability between studies. For AMC, the risk of DILI was 9.38 (95% CI 0.65-135.41) p = 0.3, I2 = 95%. In conclusion, although spontaneous reports and case series have long established an association between macrolides and AMC with acute liver injury, these SR and MA have assessed the magnitude of this association. The low incidence of DILI and the therapeutic place of these antibiotics might tilt the balance in favour of their benefits.

Exposure to benzodiazepines (anxiolytics, hypnotics and related drugs) in seven European electronic healthcare databases: a cross-national descriptive study from the PROTECT-EU Project.

PURPOSE: Studies on drug utilization usually do not allow direct cross-national comparisons because of differences in the respective applied methods. This study aimed to compare time trends in BZDs prescribing by applying a common protocol and analyses plan in seven European electronic healthcare databases. METHODS: Crude and standardized prevalence rates of drug prescribing from 2001-2009 were calculated in databases from Spain, United Kingdon (UK), The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Prevalence was stratified by age, sex, BZD type [(using ATC codes), i.e. BZD-anxiolytics BZD-hypnotics, BZD-related drugs and clomethiazole], indication and number of prescription. RESULTS: Crude prevalence rates of BZDs prescribing ranged from 570 to 1700 per 10,000 person-years over the study period. Standardization by age and sex did not substantially change the differences. Standardized prevalence rates increased in the Spanish (+13%) and UK databases (+2% and +8%) over the study period, while they decreased in the Dutch databases (-4% and -22%), the German (-12%) and Danish (-26%) database. Prevalence of anxiolytics outweighed that of hypnotics in the Spanish, Dutch and Bavarian databases, but the reverse was shown in the UK and Danish databases. Prevalence rates consistently increased with age and were two-fold higher in women than in men in all databases. A median of 18% of users received 10 or more prescriptions in 2008. CONCLUSION: Although similar methods were applied, the prevalence of BZD prescribing varied considerably across different populations. Clinical factors related to BZDs and characteristics of the databases may explain these differences.

Prevalence of antibiotic use: a comparison across various European health care data sources.

PURPOSE: There is widespread concern about increases in antibiotic use, but comparative data from different European countries on rates of use are lacking. This study was designed to measure and understand the variation in antibiotic utilization across five European countries. METHODS: Seven European healthcare databases with access to primary care data from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK were used to measure and compare the point and 1-year-period prevalence of antibiotic use between 2004 and 2009. Descriptive analyses were stratified by gender, age and type of antibiotic. Separate analyses were performed to measure the most common underlying indications leading to the prescription of an antibiotic. RESULTS: The average yearly period prevalence of antibiotic use varied from 15 (Netherlands) to 30 (Spain) users per 100 patients. A higher prevalence of antibiotic use by female patients, the very young (0-9 years) and old (80+ years), was observed in all databases. The lowest point prevalence was recorded in June and September and ranged from 0.51 (Netherlands) to 1.47 (UK) per 100 patients per day. Twelve percent (Netherlands) to forty-nine (Spain) percent of all users were diagnosed with a respiratory tract infection, and the most common type of antibiotic prescribed were penicillin. CONCLUSION: Using identical methodology in seven EU databases to assess antibiotic use allowed us to compare drug usage patterns across Europe. Our results contribute quantitatively to the true understanding of similarities and differences in the use of antibiotic agents in different EU countries.

Sales of macrolides, lincosamides, streptogramins, and amoxicillin/clavulanate in the in- and outpatient setting in 10 European countries, 2007-2010.

Monitoring the use of antibiotics is relevant due to the public health impact of microbial resistance, adverse effects, and costs. We present data on the consumption of macrolides, lincosamides, streptogramins and amoxicillin/clavulanate (AMC) between 2007 and 2010 in the in-and outpatient healthcare setting in 10 European countries provided by IMS Health. Antibiotics were classified according to the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification and consumption was expressed in defined daily doses/1000 inhabitants/day (DIDs). We analysed the number of prescriptions by diagnostic codes between 2008 and 2010, based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10). These ICD-10 codes were grouped into four main categories: respiratory infections, genitourinary infections, other infections and other diagnoses. In 2010, the consumption of macrolides and lincosamides ranged from 0.45 DIDs (Sweden) to 5.46 DIDs (Italy), and from 0.04 DIDs (Denmark) to 1.00 DID (Germany), respectively. Streptogramins were available in France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain and United Kingdom with a consumption of <0.001 DID exclusively in the hospital setting. The consumption of AMC ranged from <0.001 DIDs (Norway) to 11.67 DIDs (Spain). During the study period, the consumption of macrolides decreased, the consumption of AMC increased in most of European countries, and lincosamides varied very slightly. Macrolides and AMC were mainly prescribed for respiratory infections in all countries but United Kingdom, where most of the prescriptions were assigned to diagnostic codes not clearly related with an infection. Lincosamides were prescribed for the respiratory infections and other infections groups. There was a wide inter-country variability in the percentage of the prescriptions assigned to each of the diagnostic categories. The inter-country differences in the consumption of these antibiotics and their prescription by diagnostic categories point to an inappropriate use of antibiotics.