A practical assessment protocol for clinically relevant P-glycoprotein-mediated drug-drug interactions.

Background: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may influence the effectiveness and safety of medication treatment, which may require additional monitoring, dose adjustment or avoidance of certain drugs. DDIs involving P-glycoprotein (P-gp) affect many drugs, but current official product information is often insufficient to guide the management of these DDIs in clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to describe a protocol to assess DDIs involving P-gp and to develop and implement practice recommendations for clinically relevant P-gp-mediated DDIs that affect clinical outcomes through changes in systemic drug exposure. Methods: A combined literature review and expert opinion approach will be used according to the following seven steps: set up an expert panel (step 1), establish core concepts and definitions (step 2), select potential P-gp-modulators (i.e., P-gp-inducers and -inhibitors) and P-gp-substrates to be evaluated (step 3), select and extract evidence-based data, and present findings in standardized assessment reports (step 4), discuss and adopt classifications and practice recommendations with the expert panel (step 5), publish and integrate information and alerts in clinical decision support systems (CDSS) (step 6), (re)assessments of DDIs and potential new DDIs when new information is available or when initiated by healthcare providers (step 7). Anticipated results: The expert panel will classify potential P-gp-modulators and -substrates as clinically relevant P-gp-inducer, -inhibitor and/or -substrate and draw conclusions about which combinations of classified modulators and substrates will lead to clinically relevant DDIs. This may include the extrapolation of conclusions for DDIs where limited or no data are available, based on the pharmacological characteristics of these drugs. For (potential) DDIs that are considered to be clinically relevant, practice recommendations will be developed. Discussion: This protocol describes a standardized, evidence- and expert opinion-based assessment of P-gp-mediated DDIs that affect clinical outcomes. This approach will generate alerts with practice recommendations for clinically relevant DDIs and transparent rationales for DDIs that are considered to be irrelevant. These recommendations will improve individual patient care by supporting healthcare professionals to make consistent decisions on how to manage P-gp mediated DDIs.

Developing practical recommendations for drug-disease interactions in patients with hypertension.

Background: Hypertension, a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, demands proactive management as cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death worldwide. Reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels below recommended reference values of <140/90 mmHg can lead to a significant reduction of the risk of CVD and all-cause mortality. However, treatment of hypertension can be difficult and the presence of comorbidities could further complicate this treatment. Drugs used to manage these comorbidities may inadvertently have an impact on blood pressure, resulting in a phenomenon known as drug-disease interaction. This study aims to assess the safety of medication that can affect blood pressure in patients with hypertension and provide practical recommendations for healthcare professionals. Methods: For the development of recommendations for the drug-disease interaction (DDSI) hypertension, a six-step plan that combined literature selection and multidisciplinary expert opinion was used. The process involved (1) defining the scope of the DDSI and selecting relevant drugs, (2) collecting evidence, (3) data-extraction, (4) reaching of expert consensus, (5) publication and implementation of the recommendations in healthcare systems and (6) updating the information. Results: An increase of 10 mmHg in systolic blood pressure and 5 mmHg in diastolic blood pressure was defined as clinically relevant. Corticosteroids, danazol, and yohimbine caused a clinically relevant DDSI with hypertension. Several other drugs with warnings for hypertension in the official product information were assessed to have no clinically relevant DDSI due to minor influence or lack of data on blood pressure. Drugs with evidence for a relevant change in blood pressure which are prescribed under close monitoring of blood pressure according to clinical guidelines, were deemed to be not clinically relevant for signalling. Conclusion: This study provides specific recommendations that can be implemented directly in clinical practice, for example, in clinical decision support systems, potentially resulting in safer drug use in patients with hypertension and better healthcare by reducing alert fatigue. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of implementation strategies and their impact on reducing unsafe use of medication in patients with hypertension.

Recommendations for the safe use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data.

PURPOSE: The popularity of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing among patients with cirrhosis. Cirrhosis has a major impact on the pharmacokinetics of drugs, potentially increasing adverse events. Safe use of drugs in cirrhosis requires a diligent risk-benefit analysis. The aim of this study is to develop practice recommendations for safe use of DOACs in cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify studies on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis. Data were collected and presented in summary tables by severity of cirrhosis using the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluated the results and classified the DOACs according to safety. RESULTS: Fifty four studies were included. All DOACs were classified as 'no additional risks known' for CTP A. For CTP B, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'no additional risks known'. Apixaban and edoxaban showed fewer adverse events in patients with cirrhosis, while dabigatran may be less impacted by severity of cirrhosis based on its pharmacokinetic profile. Rivaroxaban was classified as 'unsafe' in CTP B and C based on significant pharmacokinetic alterations. Due to lack of data, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'unknown' for CTP C. CONCLUSION: DOACs can be used in patients with CTP A cirrhosis, and apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban can also be used in CTP B. It is recommended to avoid rivaroxaban in CTP B and C. There is insufficient evidence to support safe use of other DOACs in CTP C cirrhosis.

Management of drug-disease interactions: a best practice from the Netherlands.

Background Drug-disease interactions are situations where pharmacotherapy may have a negative effect on patients' comorbidities. In these cases, it can be necessary to avoid that drug, adjust its dose or monitor therapy. In the Netherlands, pharmacists have developed a best practice how to systematically evaluate drug-disease interactions based on pharmacological considerations and implement recommendations for specific drug-disease interactions. Aim To describe the development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions and the implementation in prescribing and dispensing practice in the Netherlands. Setting Pharmacies and physicians' practices in primary care and hospitals in the Netherlands. Development A multi-disciplinary expert panel assessed if diseases had clinically relevant drug-disease interactions and evaluated drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion, and subsequently developed practice recommendations. Implementation The recommendations were implemented in all clinical decision support systems in primary care and hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Evaluation Recommendations were developed for 57 diseases and conditions. Cardiovascular diseases have the most drug-disease interactions (n = 12, e.g. long QT-syndrome, heart failure), followed by conditions related to the reproductive system (n = 7, e.g. pregnancy). The number of drugs with recommendations differed between 6 for endometriosis and tympanostomy tubes, and up to 1171 in the case of porphyria or even all drugs for pregnancy. Conclusion Practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions were developed, and implemented in prescribing and dispensing practice. These recommendations support both pharmacists and physicians by signalling clinically relevant drug-disease interactions at point of care, thereby improving medication safety. This practice may be adopted and contribute to safer medication use in other countries as well.

Medication-Related Problems in Liver Transplant Recipients in the Outpatient Setting: A Dutch Cohort Study.

Background: After liver transplantation (LTx), adherence to immunosuppressive medication and avoidance of contra-indicated drugs is essential for long-term survival. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, types and severity of medication-related problems (MRPs) and interventions initiated by a clinical pharmacist (CP) in a cohort of LTx recipients in the outpatient setting. Method: This study was a retrospective, observational study in LTx recipients that visited the outpatient clinic for an annual check-up. A 20-minutes consultation with a CP consisted of medication reconciliation and consultation about medication, adherence, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Discrepancies between actual and intended drug use, and MRPs were identified and the severity of MRPs was assessed. Potential interventions were discussed with the patient and the treating physician and evaluated after one year. Results: The CP counseled 64 LTx recipients and found 96 discrepancies in 37 patients. Most discrepancies (60.4%, n = 58) concerned missing medications. In total, 98 MRPs were identified in 53 patients (median 2; range 1-5 per patient), with a total of 113 interventions. Most frequent MRPs were: ADRs (22.4%, n = 22), nonadherence (19.3%, n = 19), unnecessary drugs (16.3%, n = 16) and undertreatment (12.2%, n = 12). Interventions most frequently proposed included optimization of dosage regimen (21.2%, n = 24), individualized recommendation regarding compliance (16.8%, n = 19) and drug discontinuation (12.4%, n = 14). After one year, 15 of the 19 patients (79%) experienced no longer compliance issues and 27 of the 29 patients (93%) used no drugs with indication issues anymore. Conclusion: The CP in an outpatient monitoring program for LTx recipients can signal relevant discrepancies and MRPs. This leads to interventions that are accepted by both the patients and the physicians, with a positive effect after one year.

[Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines]. / Overgevoeligheidsreacties op covid-19-vaccins.

In 2021 many people in the Netherlands will be vaccinated against COVID-19. The mass vaccination and the new types of vaccines trigger questions about the safety of these vaccines. In this paper we discuss: (1) what reactions are expected from COVID-19 vaccines, (2) what precautions are needed when vaccinating people, and (3) how to act when allergic reactions occur. The COVID-19 vaccines include the first vaccines produced with the mRNA platform. The most frequent adverse reactions are comparable with other vaccines. Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare but can occur. These reactions may be related to excipients in the vaccines, like polyethylene glycol. In case of a possible allergic reaction, a doctor, in consultation with an allergist, can investigate whether vaccination is safe in the future and whether precautions are necessary. Allergic reactions to vaccine components must be recorded completely and unambiguously in the patient file.

No association between use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers prior to hospital admission and clinical course of COVID-19 in the COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study.

Since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, also known as COVID-19, conflicting theories have circulated on the influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) on incidence and clinical course of COVID-19, but data are scarce. The COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study is an observational, multinational study that focused on the clinical course of COVID-19 (i.e. hospital mortality and intensive care unit [ICU] admission), and included COVID-19 patients who were registered at the emergency department or admitted to clinical wards of 63 participating hospitals. Pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists or treating physicians collected data on medication prescribed prior to admission. The association between the medication and composite clinical endpoint, including mortality and ICU admission, was analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounders. A total of 4870 patients were enrolled. ACEi were used by 847 (17.4%) patients and ARB by 761 (15.6%) patients. No significant association was seen with ACEi and the composite endpoint (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.12), mortality (OR 1.03; 95%CI 0.84 to 1.27) or ICU admission (OR 0.96; 95%CI 0.78 to 1.19) after adjustment for covariates. Similarly, no association was observed between ARB and the composite endpoint (OR 1.09; 95%CI 0.90 to 1.30), mortality (OR 1.12; OR 0.90 to 1.39) or ICU admission (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.98 to 1.49). In conclusion, we found no evidence of a harmful or beneficial effect of ACEi or ARB use prior to hospital admission on ICU admission or hospital mortality.

Development of Comprehensible Prescription Label Instructions: A Study Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Patients receive information about their medication from different sources, including prescription labels. These labels are physically attached to each package dispensed to patients and contain the most important instructions on how to use the medication correctly. However, many patients experience difficulties in understanding and applying the instructions on these labels correctly, especially patients with limited health literacy. The aim of this study is to investigate the comprehensibility of prescription label instructions among patients with adequate and limited health literacy skills, and to implement improvements in primary health care. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach, which consisted of four phases. Phase 1 (desk research) was divided into a systematic literature review on the comprehensibility of prescription label instructions (1a) and a content analysis of the textual elements in Dutch prescription label instructions (1b). In phase 2 (patient studies), semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the comprehensibility of seven prescription labels among patients with different health literacy skills (2a), and a quantitative study in which the comprehensibility of six optimized prescription labels was compared among patients with different health literacy skills (2b). Patient studies were conducted in eight Dutch pharmacies. In phase 3 optimized prescription label instructions were implemented in national medication databases which has been supported by a guideline (3a), and education of pharmacy workers (3b). Phase 4 consists of evaluating the optimized prescription label instructions by experiences from patients and pharmacists. ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This mixed-methods approach will result in scientific publications of the individual studies, and a guideline on how to compose comprehensible prescription label instructions to be put on medication packages. Optimized prescription label instructions will be implemented in national medication databases. DISCUSSION: This protocol describes a mixed-method research to compose and implement comprehensible prescription label instructions and will lead to knowledge about the comprehensibility of textual elements in these labels, with specific attention for patients with limited health literacy. Implementation of optimized prescription label instructions will lead to a better understanding of them, which may contribute to improved medication adherence. A limitation is that non-textual aspects of prescription labels are not investigated.

COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study: protocol for a cohort study.

Various theories about drugs such as ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in relation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 are circulating in both mainstream media and medical literature. These are based on the fact that ACE2 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell invasion via binding of a viral spike protein to ACE2. However, the effect of ACE inhibitors, ARBs and other drugs on ACE2 is unclear and all theories are based on conflicting evidence mainly from animal studies. Therefore, clinical evidence is urgently needed. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs on clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19. Patients will be included from several hospitals in Europe. Data will be collected in a user-friendly database (Digitalis) on an external server. Analyses will be adjusted for sex, age and presence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes. These results will enable more rational choices for randomised controlled trials for preventive and therapeutic strategies in COVID-19.

The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion.

BACKGROUND: Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion. METHODS: The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers. ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS: The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands. DISCUSSION: The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases.

Prevalence and Accuracy of Information on CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP2C9 Related Substrate and Inhibitor Co-Prescriptions in the General Population: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study as Part of the PharmLines Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interaction (DDI) is one of the main contributors to adverse drug reactions and therefore, it is important to study its frequency in the population. We aimed to investigate frequency and concordance on CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP2C9 (CYP2D6/2C19/2C9)-mediated potential DDIs at the Lifelines cohort and linked data from the pharmacy database IADB.nl. METHODS: As part of the University of Groningen PharmLines Initiative, data were collected on CYP2D6/2C19/2C9-related substrate/inhibitors from entry questionnaires of Lifelines participants and linked information from the pharmacy database IADB.nl. CYP2D6/2C19/2C9 related co-prescriptions were divided based on the type of drugs i.e. chronically used medication (CM) or occasionally used medication (OM). This resulted in the combination of two chronically used drugs (CM-CM), chronically and occasionally used medication (CM-OM), and two occasionally used drugs (OM-OM). To measure the agreement level, cohen's kappa statistics and test characteristics were used. Results were stratified by time window, gender, and age. RESULTS: Among 80,837 medicine users in the Lifelines, about 1-2 per hundred participants were exposed to a CYP2D6/2C19/2C9-mediated potential DDI. Overall, the overlapping time window of three months produced the highest mean kappa values between the databases i.e. 0.545 (95% CI:0.544-0.545), 0.512 (95% CI:0.511-0.512), and 0.374 (95% CI:0.373-0.375), respectively. CM-CM had a better level of agreement (good) than CM-OM (fair to moderate) and OM-OM combination (poor to moderate). The influence of gender on concordance values was different for different CYPs. Among older persons, agreement levels were higher than for the younger population. CONCLUSIONS: CYP2D6/2C19/2C9-mediated potential DDIs were frequent and concordance of data varied by time window, type of combination, sex and age. Subsequent studies should rather use a combination of self-reported and pharmacy database information.

Safe use of medication in patients with cirrhosis: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations.

Introduction: The global burden of cirrhosis is rising, and clinicians increasingly face the challenge of safely prescribing medicines for complications of hepatic disease and comorbidities. Prescribing in patients with cirrhosis is complicated by alterations that can occur in the pharmacology of medicines.Areas covered: This paper provides an overview of current knowledge on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medicines in patients with cirrhosis. We describe the pathophysiological changes that occur and their consequences on pharmacokinetic parameters. We explain that the influence of cirrhosis on the pharmacokinetics depends on several drug and patient characteristics. Patients with cirrhosis also have an increased susceptibility to some toxicological effects of medicines, such as renal impairment and hematological toxicity, which we describe in detail. In addition, we discuss approaches to apply this knowledge in practice and improve safe medication use in patients with cirrhosis.Expert opinion: Tailored pharmacotherapy is needed to ensure safe and appropriate use of medicines in patients with cirrhosis. Clinicians are supported by freely available recommendations on safe drug use in cirrhosis published on a website. In addition, a regular evaluation of medication use in patients with cirrhosis could resolve and prevent medication-related problems.

Medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment: A survey of community pharmacists' knowledge level and their practice in caring for these patients.

AIMS: To study community pharmacists' level of knowledge on medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment and their practice in caring for these patients. METHODS: Pharmacists from Dutch community pharmacies (n = 1545) were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey consisted of 27 questions covering 2 main topics: knowledge and current practice. The level of knowledge was measured by a 6-item knowledge test. Multiple linear regression was used to identify predictors of correctly answered responses. RESULTS: In total, 338 pharmacists (22%) completed the questionnaire. The mean knowledge score was 2.8 (standard deviation 1.6). Only 30.3% of respondents were able to appropriately advise on use of analgesics in severe cirrhosis. Postgraduate education on hepatic impairment, knowledge of recently developed practical guidance, and fewer years of practice were associated with a higher level of knowledge. In total, 70.4% indicated to evaluate medication safety in a patient with hepatic impairment at least once weekly. In the past 6 months, 83.3% of respondents consulted a prescriber about a patient with hepatic impairment. Frequently encountered barriers in practice were insufficient knowledge on the topic and a lack of essential patient information (i.e. diagnosis and severity of the impairment). CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists regularly evaluate the safety of medication in patients with hepatic impairment, yet their level of knowledge was insufficient and additional education is needed. Pharmacists experienced several difficulties in providing pharmaceutical care. If these issues are resolved, pharmacists can play a more active role in ensuring medication safety in their patients with hepatic impairment.

Evaluation of Information in Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) on the Use of a Medicine in Patients With Hepatic Impairment.

Background: In 2005, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released guidance on pharmacokinetic studies in patients with hepatic impairment. This guidance describes the design of these studies and what information should be presented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). We aim to evaluate the availability and clinical applicability of information on medicine use in patients with hepatic impairment in SmPCs and registrational dossiers of recently approved medicines. Methods: We reviewed SmPC information on use in patients with hepatic impairment of 51 new medicines authorized between 2015 and 2017. Per medicine, we assessed the availability of nine information items derived from the EMA guidance, i.e. type of hepatic disease studied; stratification by severity of hepatic impairment; influence of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics; safety advice in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments; and dosing recommendation in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments. If unavailable, the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and study report were consulted consecutively. Of available items, clinical applicability was assessed by labeling information as "clear" or "ambiguous". Results: Of 51 medicines, 15 had no pharmacokinetic study in patients with hepatic impairment described in their SmPC. The other 36 SmPCs contained on average seven of the nine information items (range 4-9). One SmPC contained all 9 items, and after consulting, the study reports, 11 SmPCs were complete. The item "type of hepatic disease studied" was available in one SmPC, though it could be retrieved in 21 study reports. Regarding clinical applicability, there was no medicine with all information items available and clearly formulated in the SmPC. A total of 12 medicines (33%) contained only clearly formulated information, while 24 (67%) contained at least one ambiguously formulated information item (range 0-4). Items often ambiguously formulated were: "definition of mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment" (15 ambiguous SmPCs) and "safety advice in severe hepatic impairment" (17 ambiguous SmPCs). Conclusion: While SmPCs contain a large part of information requested by the EMA, clinical applicability seems low, as it is often unclear to which specific type of hepatic disease patient the advice applies. This can negatively influence the practical use by healthcare professionals.

The effect of a pharmaceutical transitional care program on rehospitalisations in internal medicine patients: an interrupted-time-series study.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors at transition of care can adversely affect patient safety. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of a transitional pharmaceutical care program on unplanned rehospitalisations. METHODS: An interrupted-time-series study was performed, including patients from the Internal Medicine department using at least one prescription drug. The program consisted of medication reconciliation, patient counselling at discharge, and communication to healthcare providers in primary care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an unplanned rehospitalisation within six months post-discharge. Secondary outcomes were drug-related hospital visits, drug-related problems (DRPs), adherence, believes about medication, and patient satisfaction. Interrupted time series analysis was used for the primary outcome and descriptive statistics were performed for the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In total 706 patients were included. At 6 months, the change in trend for unplanned rehospitalisations between usual care and the program group was non-significant (- 0.2, 95% CI -4.9;4.6). There was no significant difference for drug-related visits although visits due to medication reconciliation problems occurred less often (4 usual care versus 1 intervention). Interventions to prevent DRPs were present for all patients in the intervention group (mean: 10 interventions/patient). No effect was seen on adherence and beliefs about medication. Patients were significantly more satisfied with discharge counselling (68.9% usual care vs 87.1% program). CONCLUSIONS: The transitional pharmaceutical care program showed no effect on unplanned rehospitalisations. This lack of effect is probably because the reason for rehospitalisations are multifactorial while the transitional care program focused on medication. There were less hospital visits due to medication reconciliation problems, but further large scale studies are needed due to the small number of drug-related visits. (Dutch trial register: NTR1519).

[Hypersensitivity reactions to excipients in patches]. / Overgevoeligheid voor hulpstoffen in pleisters.

The most common side effects of transdermal patches are mechanical reactions caused by applying or removing the transdermal patch, or by excessive perspiration under the patch. Allergic contact dermatitis (type IV allergic reaction) is the most commonly occurring hypersensitivity reaction and can be caused by the active substance or by excipients. Type I allergic reactions such as urticaria, bronchospasm and angioedema are rare and usually caused by the active substance in the patch. Allergy testing to determine the allergen is indicated following a type I allergic reaction, or after a type IV allergic reaction that requires an alternative for the patch. It is important to document hypersensitivity reactions in the electronic patient records in order to prevent a hypersensitivity reaction in the future.