Clinically relevant drug interactions between statins and antidepressants.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Statins, also known as 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors, and antidepressant drugs are frequently used in combination due to the high and growing incidence of cardiovascular diseases and psychiatric disorders worldwide. Several aspects on management, the risk of adverse events (AEs) occurrence and the potential clinically relevant pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between these two classes have not been well investigated. The aim of the present review was to describe the PK and PD interactions, of clinical relevance, between statins and antidepressant drugs and provide a comprehensive overview of their pharmacological features for appropriate multiple drug regimens. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through a literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane databases focusing on clinically relevant DDIs between statins and antidepressants. Only papers in English were included in the search. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Pharmacodynamic (PD) drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are unlikely to occur as statins are highly selective inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase with no relevant effect on other enzymes or receptor systems. Despite the numerous PK studies on individual drugs belonging to statins and antidepressant agents, only a few case reports regarding specific DDIs are present in the literature and no clinical studies have been performed. PK data allow to speculate on potential DDIs, comparing the metabolic pathways, intestinal and liver transporters and elimination routes. Overall, second-generation antidepressants, in particular citalopram, escitalopram, mirtazapine, reboxetine and venlafaxine, have weak inhibitory effects on various cytochrome (CYP) isozymes and seem to have a more advantageous DDIs profile in vivo. Conversely, nefazodone, fluoxetine, paroxetine and fluvoxamine influence considerably CYPs activity with potential effects on statins plasma levels, although pravastatin, pitavastatin and rosuvastatin are not susceptible to inhibition by any CYP. Albeit no studies have been performed on P-glycoprotein (P-gp), interactions of clinical relevance are unlikely. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Although DDIs with antidepressants are potentially, but rarely clinically significant, the use of antidepressants with a more favourable drug interaction profile is advisable. An evaluation on DDIs between these drugs can be useful for future PK/PD studies on drug-drug interaction to provide clinicians with more data for appropriate multiple drug regimens.

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers induced pemphigus: A case series and literature review.

Pemphigus is a group of autoimmune diseases characterized by the formation of erosions and/or flaccid bullae of the skin and/or mucosae. The definition "drug-induced pemphigus" has been coined to indicate cases of pemphigus with clinical, histological and immunopathologic features similar to those of the idiopathic disease but induced by systemic ingestion or local use of some drugs. The present authors analyzed a case series of three case reports with clinical and pharmacological features compatible with the diagnosis of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blocker drug-induced pemphigus. The patients were visited by the dermatological Unit of Magna Graecia University in Catanzaro. All suspected drug induced pemphigus were treated by suspending the suspected drug and by starting a treatment with systemic corticosteroid drugs, leading to a remission of the clinical manifestations in some months. When a drug induced bullous disease is probable, it is necessary to interrupt the suspected substance and to start a high dose treatment with corticosteroid drugs to resolve the clinical case in a short period of time.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants: From Randomized Clinical Trials to Real-World Clinical Practice.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a more manageable alternative than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent and treat venous thromboembolism. Despite their widespread use in clinical practice, there are still some unresolved issues on optimizing their use in particular clinical settings. Herein, we reviewed the current clinical evidence on uses of DOACs from pharmacology and clinical indications to safety and practical issues such as drugs and food interactions. Dabigatran is the DOAC most affected by interactions with drugs and food, although all DOACs demonstrate a favorable pharmacokinetic profile. Management issues associated with perioperative procedures, bleeding treatment, and special populations (pregnancy, renal and hepatic impairment, elderly, and oncologic patients) have been discussed. Literature evidence shows that DOACs are at least as effective as VKAs, with a favorable safety profile; data are particularly encouraging in using low doses of edoxaban in elderly patients, and edoxaban and rivaroxaban in the treatment of venous thromboembolism in oncologic patients. In the next year, DOAC clinical indications are likely to be further extended.

Safety Profile of Biologics Used in Rheumatology: An Italian Prospective Pharmacovigilance Study.

Post-marketing surveillance activities are essential to detect the risk/benefit profile of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in inflammatory arthritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with bDMARDs in rheumatology during a prospective pharmacovigilance study from 2016 to 2018. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed to evaluate bDMARDs-related variables of patients without AEs/failures vs patients with AEs and failures. The risk profile among biologics was assessed by comparing patients treated with each bDMARD to patients treated with etanercept. A total of 1155 patients were enrolled, mostly affected by rheumatoid arthritis (46.0%). AEs and failures were experienced by 8.7% and 23.3%, respectively. The number of comorbidities significantly influenced the onset of AEs, while anxiety-depressive, gastrointestinal disease, and fibromyalgia influenced onset of failures. The probability of developing an AE was significantly lower in patients treated with secukinumab, while the probability of developing treatment failure was significantly lower in patients treated with golimumab, secukinumab and tocilizumab. A total of 216 AEs were reported (25.5% serious), mostly regarding infections (21.8%), musculoskeletal (17.6%) and skin (16.2%) disorders. Serious AEs included neutropenia (12.7%), lymphocytosis (9.1%) and uveitis (7.3%). The obtained results revealed known AEs but real-world data should be endorsed for undetected safety concerns.

Safety profile of biologic drugs for psoriasis in clinical practice: An Italian prospective pharmacovigilance study.

Psoriasis is an inflammatory and chronic skin disorder associated with physical and psychological burden impairing patients' quality of life. In the last decade, biologic drugs have widely changed treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis and their number is increasing overtime. To early identify expected/unexpected adverse events (AEs) with biologic treatments, pharmacovigilance programs are needed. We designed a post-marketing active pharmacovigilance program to monitor and analyse AEs and/or serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. All consecutive patients treated with one biologic drug during a two-years period and satisfying inclusion criteria have been enrolled in five Dermatology tertiary units. Demographic and clinical features of patients, type of treatment used, therapy discontinuation, failures, switch/swap to another biologic, and possible onset of AEs were collected. Overall, 512 patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis (286; 55.9%) or arthropathic psoriasis (226; 44.1%) have been enrolled. Eighty-two (16%) patients with AEs and 5 (1%) with SAEs have been identified. Further, 59 (11.5%) had a primary/secondary failure (mainly on infliximab and etanercept). The adverse events and SAEs were reported with golimumab (4/12), adalimumab (32/167), infliximab (9/48), etanercept (31/175) and ustekinumab (11/73), no adverse events have occurred with secukinumab (0/37). Infliximab and etanercept were significantly associated with primary/secondary failures, whereas no differences have been highlighted for AEs insurgence. On the other hand, ustekinumab seems to be associated with a low rate of AEs (p = 0.01) and no adverse events or failures have been reported with secukinumab (p = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). Our study, even though limited by a small sample size and a brief follow-up period, provide useful data on widely used biologic drugs and their tolerability, discontinuation rate and the incurrence of severe adverse events. Further studies are necessary to include the recently approved biologic drugs and to increase the sample size for more detailed analysis.

Safety profiles of biologic agents for inflammatory bowel diseases: a prospective pharmacovigilance study in Southern Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are a public health issue with over 3.5 million patients in Europe, but the advent of several biologic agents has completely changed their management. Pharmacovigilance is needed to early detect expected/unexpected adverse events (AEs) to assess the safety of drugs in a real-world setting. Aim of this prospective pharmacovigilance study was to evaluate the occurrence of AEs in patients treated with biologic drugs in gastroenterology units in Southern Italy. METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with one biologic drug during a 2-years period (2017-2018) in six gastroenterology tertiary units and satisfying inclusion criteria were enrolled. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, type of treatment used, therapy discontinuation, failures, switch/swap to another biologic, and possible onset of AEs were collected. Adverse events have been compared to the number of AEs reported in the same centres in the two years before the protocol. RESULTS: Overall, 623 patients (253 females) with Crohn's disease (352; 56.5%) or ulcerative colitis (271; 43.5%) have been included. Infliximab (IFX) was the most commonly used (308, 49.4%), followed by adalimumab (ADA; 215, 34.5%), vedolizumab (VED; 73, 11.7%), golimumab (GOL; 26, 4.2%) and ustekinumab (UST; 0.2%). Ninety-two patients have experienced AEs (14.8%) and 10 serious adverse events (SAEs) (1.6%) were recorded. Adverse events and SAEs have been reported with GOL (7/26; p = .88), IFX (51/308; p = .54), ADA (28/125; p = .40) and VED (6/73; p = .11), no AEs occurred with UST (0/1). CONCLUSION: Overall, considering the low rate of AEs reported and discontinuation from therapy, our data seems to confirm the positive beneficial/risk ratio of biologic treatment for IBDs and provide useful data on biologic drugs in gastroenterology.

Implementing a simple pharmacovigilance program to improve reporting of adverse events associated with biologic therapy in rheumatology: Preliminary results from the Calabria Biologics Pharmacovigilance Program (CBPP).

INTRODUCTION: Post-marketing surveillance activities (namely pharmacovigilance) are crucial to favor the early detection of unexpected adverse events (AEs) and/or serious adverse reactions (SAEs). Indeed, spontaneous reporting of AEs has been demonstrated to underestimate the number of events in different clinical settings. Aim of the present study is to report the preliminary data of a Regional (Calabria, Italy) Pharmacovigilance Program (CBPP) aimed at improving AEs' reporting associated with biologics use in rheumatology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a simple, cost-effective pharmacovigilance program based on regular training sessions for physicians (stimulated reporting), periodical phone calls by a clinical pharmacologist aimed at identifying new events and stimulating self-awareness and encouraging reporting to the physician during the subsequent follow-up visit for minor AEs. To test this approach, all consecutive patients undergoing treatment with one biologic agent at eight rheumatology centers during a two-years period were invited to participate. Collected AEs were compared to the number of AEs spontaneously reported for the same molecules in the same centers before starting the protocol. RESULTS: During the study period, 399 patients (245 females; mean age: 58 ± 11 years) were started on treatment with biologics for active RA (n = 211, 52.9%), PsA (n = 119, 29.8%) or AS (n = 69, 17.3%) at eight rheumatology centers. A total of 125 AEs (31.3%) and 9 SAEs (2.3%) were reported during the two-years study period. In the control cohort (comprising 368 consecutive patients started on treatment with bDMARDs during a two-years period before CBPP study) only 42 (11.4%) AEs and no SAEs were reported (p < 0.0001). The most common AEs were injection site reactions and skin disorders. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study provides further evidence of a critical role of active pharmacovigilance in detection, reporting and analysis of AEs in rheumatology.