Adverse Events of Psychological Interventions: Definitions, Assessment, Current State of the Research and Implications for Research and Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of psychological interventions is undisputed. But while in other fields of health care the safety of interventions is studied alongside effectiveness, adverse events (AEs) have only recently been assessed in clinical studies of psychological interventions. This critical review summarizes the definition, assessment and current research status of AEs of psychological interventions. SUMMARY: AEs are defined as any untoward event or unfavorable change that occurs in the course of a psychological intervention. AEs that are caused by the intervention can be classified into side effects of correctly applied treatment, malpractice (i.e., incorrectly applied treatment) and unethical conduct (e.g., sexual abuse). Ideally, they are assessed by independent raters or alternatively by self-report questionnaires that should also cover serious adverse events (SAEs, e.g., suicide attempts or self-injurious behaviors). About 1 to 2 in 3 patients report at least 1 AE and results of meta-analyses suggest that treatments might differ in frequency and/or severity of AE and in treatment acceptability (measured as dropout rates). KEY MESSAGES: Measures of AEs and SAEs as well as more nuanced descriptions of dropout should be included in all clinical studies of psychological interventions. If this happens, we might learn that psychological interventions differ with respect to AEs, SAEs and acceptability. As many psychological interventions are about equally effective, they might one day be chosen based on differences in their safety profile rather than their differential effectiveness. Ideally, reducing AEs might also lead to more effective interventions.

Perspectives on biovigilance and transmission of infection of donor origin in deceased organ donation-The evolving scenario in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: A biovigilance program that has oversight of the entire organ and tissue donation and transplantation pathways underpins the quality and safety system in the United Kingdom. METHOD: A synopsis of the microbiological characterization of potential deceased organ donors and the processes for notification and investigation of possible donor-derived infections are described. A summary of the outcome of investigations performed over a 10-year period and a subset data frame of 5 years showing the proportion of infection incidents in relation to other incident types are also presented. CONCLUSION: A single, centralized system overseeing the entire donation and transplantation pathway has become an essential part of transplantation practice across the United Kingdom. Revision of processes and management options, awareness of clinical conditions, and review of guidance are some examples of benefits gained over time. Transmission figures provided reflect the UK setting; these should be interpreted in context, as donor and recipient epidemiology differs across regions and nations. Despite a well-established system in place, under reporting of cases continues to occur, with ongoing efforts to reassure professionals and patients of the true benefits of biovigilance in driving improvements in practice and patient outcomes.

Perspectives on donor-derived infections from Germany.

AIM: Often, organ transplantation is the only option to improve the life expectancy and quality of life of patients with terminal organ failure. Despite improved donor and organ assessment, a residual risk remains for transmitting infection, tumor, or other disease from the donor to recipients. Analysis, reporting, and managing of donor-derived diseases through a vigilance and surveillance system (V&S) is mandatory in many countries. We report on suspected and proven/probable donor-derived infections (DDI) in Germany over a period of 8 years (2016-2023). METHODS: All incoming serious-adverse-event and serious-adverse-reaction (SAE/SAR) reports from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2023 were evaluated for suspected DDI. Analysis of imputability followed the definition of the US Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC). Only probable and proven cases according to DTAC classification were defined as DDI. RESULTS: During the study period, 9771 donors in Germany donated post-mortem organs to 27 919 recipients. In that period 612 SAE/SAR cases were reported, 377 (62%) involved infections. 41 cases were proven/probable DDI affecting 58 recipients (seven recipients died, 12%). Suspected infections were bacterial (182/377, 48%), fungal (135/377, 36%), viral (55/377, 15%), and parasitic (5/377, 1%). In case of bacterial DDI, no recipient died, but organ loss occurred in six recipients. In case of fungal or viral DDI, 19% (3/16) and 21% (3/14) of the recipients died, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DDI are rare in solid organ transplantation (58/27 919, 0.21%), but when they occur, they are associated with high morbidity and mortality in affected recipients. Careful and detailed donor evaluation and a reliable V&S help improve recipient safety.

Safety of exercise training in multiple sclerosis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A review of the safety profile of exercise training in multiple sclerosis (MS) has not been conducted since 2013. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise training published since 2013 and quantified estimated population risks of clinical relapse, adverse events (AE) and serious adverse event (SAE). METHODS: Articles reporting safety outcomes from comparisons of exercise training with non-exercise among persons with MS were identified. The risk of bias was established from study's internal validity assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Rates and estimated mean population relative risks (RRs; 95% confidence interval (CI)) of safety outcomes were calculated, and random-effects meta-analysis estimated the mean RR. RESULTS: Forty-six interventions from 40 RCTs (N = 1780) yielded 46, 40 and 39 effects for relapse, AE, adverse effects and SAE, respectively. The mean population RRs ((95% CI), p-value) for relapse, AE and SAE were 0.95 ((0.61, 1.48), p = 0.82), 1.40 ((0.90, 2.19), p = 0.14) and 1.05 ((0.62, 1.80), p = 0.85), respectively. No significant heterogeneity is observed for any outcome. CONCLUSION: In studies that reported safety outcomes, there was no higher risk of relapse, AE, adverse effects or SAE for exercise training than the comparator. Exercise training may be promoted as safe and beneficial to persons with MS.

Vigilance Data in Organ Donation and Solid Organ Transplantation in Germany: Six Years of Experience 2016-2022.

The reporting of serious adverse events (SAE) and serious adverse reactions (SAR) is an essential part of an effective vigilance and surveillance system (V&S) in organ donation and transplantation. All SAE and SAR reported to the German organ procurement organization (DSO) between 2016 and 2022 were analyzed. In case of a possible transmission of a disease to one or more recipients, an assessment of imputability was done according to the grading system of the US Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC). 543 SAE and SAR cases were reported to the DSO and analyzed in detail. 53 of the 543 reports (9.8%) were proven or probable (P/P) transmissions of infectious diseases, malignancies or other diseases to 75 recipients. Infections were the most frequently reported P/P disease transmission occurrences (30/53, 57%). In case of disease transmission, the mortality of the recipients was high (17/75, 23%), especially when a malignant disease was transmitted (11/22, 50 %). Donor-Derived disease transmission is a rare event (53/8,519; 0.6 %), but when it occurs can lead to significant morbidity and mortality.

Learning from incidents in medically assisted reproduction: the Notify Library as a learning tool.

Biovigilance is the systematic monitoring of serious adverse reactions and events (SARE) that ensures the quality and safety of tissues and cells for human application in medically assisted reproduction (MAR). The Notify Library is an open access database launched by the World Health Organization and supported by the Italian National Transplant Centre (CNT) that has collected information on documented adverse occurrences in transplantation, transfusion and MAR. It is not a SARE register, but rather a collection of SARE types identified primarily by review of published articles and case reports from national or regional vigilance programmes. The Notify Library includes many well-documented records of adverse occurrences in MAR treatment, representing a useful tool for MAR operators in the evaluation of the risks associated with the clinical application of reproductive tissues and cells. It is updated with new records when a new type of incident is reported for the first time. All incident types described might have teaching value during the risk management carried out by a MAR centre. Sharing lessons learned from these incidents represents an important didactic opportunity that can help MAR centres to improve their processes and to achieve higher standards of quality and safety.

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Serious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials. METHODS: The recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures. RESULTS: The recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014). Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017).

The characteristics, types of intervention, and outcomes of postoperative patients who required rapid response system intervention: a nationwide database analysis.

PURPOSE: Improving the safety of general wards is a key to reducing serious adverse events in the postoperative period. We investigated the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of postoperative patients managed by a rapid response system (RRS) in Japan to improve postoperative management. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed cases requiring RRS intervention that were included in the In-Hospital Emergency Registry in Japan. We analyzed data reported by 34 Japanese hospitals between January 2014 and March 2018, mainly focusing on postoperative patients for whom the RRS was activated within 7 days of surgery. Non-postoperative patients, for whom the RRS was activated in all other settings, were used for comparison as necessary. RESULTS: There were 609 (12.7%) postoperative patients among the total patients in the registry. The major criteria were staff concerns (30.2%) and low oxygen saturation (29.7%). Hypotension, tachycardia, and inability to contact physicians were observed as triggers significantly more frequently in postoperative patients when compared with non-postoperative patients. Among RRS activations within 7 days of surgery, 68.9% of activations occurred within postoperative day 3. The ordering of tests (46.8%) and fluid bolus (34.6%) were major interventions that were performed significantly more frequently in postoperative patients when compared with non-postoperative patients. The rate of RRS activations resulting in ICU care was 32.8%. The mortality rate at 1 month was 16.2%. CONCLUSION: Approximately, 70% of the RRS activations occurred within postoperative day 3. Circulatory problems were a more frequent cause of RRS activation in the postoperative group than in the non-postoperative group.

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis: clinical data for a product family (ARTHRUM), with comparative meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Viscosupplementation is widely practiced, to reduce pain in osteoarthritis (OA), using intra articular (IA) injections of hyaluronic acid (HA). In Europe, these products are class III medical devices, for which the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) requires clinical assessment, based on specific studies and/or a bibliographical review of equivalent devices. The purpose of this article is to present a comparative review between a family of devices (ARTHRUM, from LCA Pharmaceuticals, Chartres, France) and an extensive group of presumed equivalent IA HA devices or their controls, whose results have been published in Scientific journals. METHODS: To meet the criteria used in most ARTHRUM studies, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities' index sub-scores were selected for pain (WOMAC A), stiffness (WOMAC B) and function (WOMAC C). The main criterion was the variation of the WOMAC A score from T0 (date of inclusion) to T6 (6 months). The other WOMAC criteria were assessed at T1, T3, T6 and complemented by OMERACT-OARSI rates of responders to the treatment. Fifty articles were selected, containing treatment details on more than 12,000 patients. These were divided into three groups: ARTHRUM, EQUIVALENTS and CONTROLS. To get quantitative comparisons, meta-analyses were performed for each criterion individually. The 95% confidence interval of each difference from baseline, was used to assess the clinical relevance, with reference to a minimum validated in OA literature. Comparisons between groups and tolerance assessment completed the investigation. RESULTS: For the WOMAC A, B and C scores, the full 95% CI was always above the minimal perceptible clinical improvement (MPCI), in the ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups, but not for all criteria in the CONTROLS group. In the comparisons, both ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups were significantly better than the CONTROLS group for each criterion. The effect size (ES) on pain, for the ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups, varied from 0.28 to 0.56 and from 0.23 to 0.27, respectively. Overall, ARTHRUM was estimated always non-inferior to EQUIVALENTS, and sometimes statistically and clinically superior. CONCLUSIONS: The comparison of ARTHRUM clinical studies, with studies selected through bibliographic research, leads to the conclusion that the clinical efficacy of the ARTHRUM medical devices, to reduce pain and improve the function in knee OA, during a six-month period, is at least as great as those of equivalent products. With good tolerance results (lowest rate of adverse events, and none of them serious), the risk benefit ratio favours using viscosupplementation with ARTHRUM.

Evolving pediatric epidural practice: An institution's clinical experience over 20 years-A retrospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Epidural analgesia is an effective, established perioperative intervention in all age-groups. In children, however, epidural-related data are limited compared to the adult population. The aim of this study was to examine the use of pediatric epidural analgesia in our institution and, thereby, add to the existing data pool. METHODOLOGY: Patients who received epidural analgesia as part of their perioperative management between 1996 and 2016 at Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK, were studied to determine how epidural practice has changed over time, associated incidence of serious adverse events, complications, and patient/parent satisfaction. Epidural use and monitoring were in accordance with standard hospital protocols. Data were prospectively collected and entered into a secure database by trained personnel. These data were subsequently extracted for retrospective analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3876 patients were included. The median age was 4.4 years (range 1 day to 20 years), and the median weight was 20.3 kg. Across all age-groups, the lumbar region was the most common site of epidural insertion while urology (42.2%) and general surgery (37.3%) were the specialities for which it was most utilized. Over the study period, the number of epidurals performed declined while the number of surgical procedures performed simultaneously increased. The infusate most commonly used was local anesthetic with preservative-free morphine (71.9%). In 923 (23.2%) patients, systemic opioids were additionally used for analgesic management by means of patient-controlled analgesia or nurse-controlled analgesia. There was one serious adverse event in the form of permanent nerve injury, giving an overall incidence of approximately 1:3800. Other complications included postoperative nausea and vomiting (35.9%), urinary retention (4.4%), and pruritus (31%). Overall global satisfaction with the service was generally high, with 95% providing a rating of "very good" or "good." CONCLUSION: This study evaluated two decades of epidural practice in our institution. Epidural analgesia remains a safe, effective option for postoperative analgesia, but its use has declined over time, and this trend is likely to continue. Rates of serious adverse events and complications were low and comparable to those published in other similar studies. Global satisfaction among patients/parents remains high.

[Statistics and Analysis of 136 Cases of Adverse Events of International Medical Devices].

To explore the law and characteristics of adverse events of medical devices and to provide research methods and basis for reducing the recurrence of similar adverse events, we collect medical devices safety information from five representative countries in the world, and make statistics and analysis on the types of events, the types of management and the causes of events. The results show that among 136 serious adverse events, the top three causes of recall are product design factors, software factors, and component defects. In order to reduce the application risk of medical devices, it is suggested that product designers, operating users and medical institutions should correctly implement the monitoring and evaluation system of medical devices.

Polypharmacy is associated with treatment response and serious adverse events: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether polypharmacy is associated with treatment response and serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients with RA using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR-RA). METHODS: The BSRBR-RA is a prospective observational cohort study of biologic therapy starters and a DMARD comparator arm. A logistic regression model was used to calculate the odds of a EULAR 'good response' after 12 months of biologic therapy by medication count. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify risk of SAEs. The utility of the models were compared with the Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index using Receiver Operator Characteristic and Harrell's C statistic. RESULTS: The analysis included 22 005 patients, of which 83% were initiated on biologics. Each additional medication reduced the odds of a EULAR good response by 8% [odds ratios 0.92 (95% CI 0.91, 0.93) P < 0.001] and 3% in the adjusted model [adjusted odds ratios 0.97 (95% CI 0.95, 0.98) P < 0.001]. The Receiver Operator Characteristic demonstrated significantly greater areas under the curve with the polypharmacy model than the Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index. There were 12 547 SAEs reported in 7286 patients. Each additional medication equated to a 13% increased risk of an SAE [hazard ratio 1.13 (95% CI 1.12, 1.13) P < 0.001] and 6% in the adjusted model [adjusted hazard ratio 1.06 (95% CI 1.05, 1.07) P < 0.001]. Predictive values for SAEs were comparable between the polypharmacy and Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index model. CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy is a simple but valuable predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with RA. This study supports medication count as a valid measure for use in epidemiologic analyses.

Effect of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on major adverse cardiac events and serious adverse events: A bivariate analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering may offer protective effects against major adverse cardiac event (MACE) but is also associated with a greater risk of a serious adverse event (SAE). The risk-benefit profile of intensive versus standard BP control has not been comprehensively assessed. METHODS: Four studies were identified from a systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials comparing intensive versus standard BP lowering that reported both MACE and SAE endpoints. A previously described statistical approach was applied to characterize the efficacy-safety tradeoff of BP control. The bivariate outcome was computed to quantitatively assess the net clinical benefit (NCB) of intensive BP lowering as compared to standard treatment, with positive values indicating increased risks and negative values indicating decreased risks. RESULTS: Data from the SPRINT trial demonstrated that intensive strategy was superior in MACE but inferior in SAE, thereby eroding the NCB (bivariate outcome: 0.33% [-0.50% to 1.21%]). Intensive strategy from the SPS3 trial fulfilled non-inferiority in both MACE and SAE but did not reach a favorable NCB (-1.31% [-2.25% to 0.01%]). The ACCORD trial suggested that intensive strategy was non-inferior in MACE but inferior in SAE (-0.19% [-0.79% to 1.37%]). Results from the VALISH trial were inconclusive for SAE but suggested non-inferiority in MACE (-1.19% [-3.24% to 0.68%]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the standard blood pressure target, pooled data from randomized controlled trials suggest that intensive strategy did not achieve a net clinical benefit when weighing the benefit of MACE reduction against the risk of SAE under the bivariate framework. ABBREVIATIONS: Blood pressure (BP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), major adverse cardiac event (MACE), net clinical benefit (NCB), serious adverse event (SAE), systolic blood pressure (SBP).

Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among patients receiving omalizumab: Results from EXCELS, a prospective cohort study in moderate to severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: EXCELS, a postmarketing observational cohort study, was a commitment to the US Food and Drug Administration to assess the long-term safety of omalizumab in an observational setting, focusing predominantly on malignancies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine a potential association between omalizumab and cardiovascular (CV)/cerebrovascular (CBV) events in EXCELS. METHODS: Patients (≥12 years of age) with moderate to severe allergic asthma and who were being treated with omalizumab (n = 5007) or not (n = 2829) at baseline were followed up for ≤5 years. Analyses included overall CV/CBV events, but focused on the subset of arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs), comprising CV death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, and unstable angina. A prespecified analysis of the end point of ATE was conducted to control for available potential confounders. A blinded independent expert panel adjudicated all events. RESULTS: At baseline, the 2 cohorts had similar demographic characteristics, but severe asthma was more common in the omalizumab versus the non-omalizumab group (50% vs 23%). Omalizumab-treated patients had a higher rate of CV/CBV serious adverse events (13.4 per 1,000 person years [PYs]) than did non-omalizumab-treated patients (8.1 per 1,000 PYs). The ATE rates per 1,000 PYs were 6.66 (101 patients/15,160 PYs) in the omalizumab cohort and 4.64 (46 patients/9,904 PYs) in the non-omalizumab cohort. After control for available confounding factors, the hazard ratio was 1.32 (95% CI, 0.91-1.91). CONCLUSION: This observational study demonstrated a higher incidence rate of CV/CBV events in the omalizumab versus the non-omalizumab cohort. Differences in asthma severity between cohorts likely contributed to this imbalance, but some increase in risk cannot be excluded.

The past, present and future of the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) in Japan.

The postanesthesia care unit (PACU), which is run and coordinated by anesthesiologists, delivers general medical supervision as well as close and constant care to patients who have just undergone a surgical procedure under anesthesia. Although PACU management has been considered a standard procedure in many developed countries since the 1940s, Japanese hospitals have tended to cease their management, and only 16.1% of hospitals in Japan currently have PACUs. In today's efficiency-required atmosphere in Japan, we need to consider a better postoperative management method, including facilities similar to the PACU, to prevent serious adverse events and improve the postoperative outcomes and quality of life. Nevertheless, the way postoperative patients are treated and cared for, and the location in which they receive such attention, will likely need to be modified to fit the Japanese style due to Japan's unique medical systems and traditions. Here, we describe the past, present and future of the PACU and postanesthesia care in Japan compared with other countries.

Quality of serious adverse events reporting to academic sponsors of clinical trials: far from optimal.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of the serious adverse events (SAE) reported to an academic sponsor. Assessing the safety of a clinical trial relies on information gathering the collection of adverse events reported by the investigators to the sponsor. The accuracy of safety evaluation depends in particular on the quality of the reporting. METHODS: All SAE case report forms, reported in 2012 to the sponsor from all clinical trials, were evaluated for completeness and accuracy with a standardized data quality evaluation form. Several items were assessed: regulatory mandatory information and items concerning the reported events. For statistical comparisons, Chi2/exact Fisher test was performed. RESULTS: Investigators or patients were not identified in <3% of the reports. The investigational product was not identified in 11.2%. In 3.6% of the reports, the seriousness of the event was unknown. The causality assessment was missing in 9.3%. In 15.0%, the verbatim of the event was considered as not consistent with the description of the event. In 32.4%, the sponsor considered there were insufficient data concerning relevant laboratory/additional examinations performed or relevant history required to help in the assessment. The onset date of SAE was not mentioned in 5.7% of the reports and patient outcome in 12.1%. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the far from optimal quality of reporting both in terms of completeness and accuracy. The accurate coding of the events using MedDRA and the safety evaluation by the sponsor can be difficult. The training of investigators in SAE reporting must be improved. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[Preventing interruptions during the administration of medicines]. / Administration du médicament, prévenir les interruptions de tâches.

The medication use pathway is a complex process with a high risk of error, all the more so if it is interspersed with interruptions. Interruptions during care procedures are a real problem which can result in serious adverse events. A legal frame obliges the health institutions to secure the administration of medicines. This priority objective is translated by risks assessments, tools of self-assessment, audits, corrective actions, which allow a raising awareness of the professionals to the risks associated to medicines.

[The error, source of learning]. / L'erreur, une source d'apprentissage.

The error itself is not recognised as a fault. It is the intentionality which differentiates between an error and a fault. An error is unintentional while a fault is a failure to respect known rules. The risk of error is omnipresent in health institutions. Public authorities have therefore set out a series of measures to reduce this risk.

Eltrombopag increases platelet numbers in thrombocytopenic patients with HCV infection and cirrhosis, allowing for effective antiviral therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Thrombocytopenia is common among patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, limiting initiation and dose of peginterferon-alfa (PEG) and ribavirin (RBV) therapy. The phase 3 randomized, controlled studies, Eltrombopag to Initiate and Maintain Interferon Antiviral Treatment to Benefit Subjects with Hepatitis C-Related Liver Disease (ENABLE)-1 and ENABLE-2, investigated the ability of eltrombopag to increase the number of platelets in patients, thereby allowing them to receive initiation or maintenance therapy with PEG and RBV. METHODS: Patients with HCV infection and thrombocytopenia (platelet count <75,000/µL) who participated in ENABLE-1 (n = 715) or ENABLE-2 (n = 805), from approximately 150 centers in 23 countries, received open-label eltrombopag (25-100 mg/day) for 9 weeks or fewer. Patients whose platelet counts reached the predefined minimal threshold for the initiation of PEG and RBV therapy (95% from ENABLE-1 and 94% from ENABLE-2) entered the antiviral treatment phase, and were assigned randomly (2:1) to groups that received eltrombopag or placebo along with antiviral therapy (24 or 48 weeks, depending on HCV genotype). The primary end point was sustained virologic response (SVR) 24 weeks after completion of antiviral therapy. RESULTS: More patients who received eltrombopag than placebo achieved SVRs (ENABLE-1: eltrombopag, 23%; placebo, 14%; P = .0064; ENABLE-2: eltrombopag, 19%; placebo, 13%; P = .0202). PEG was administered at higher doses, with fewer dose reductions, in the eltrombopag groups of each study compared with the placebo groups. More patients who received eltrombopag than placebo maintained platelet counts of 50,000/µL or higher throughout antiviral treatment (ENABLE-1, 69% vs 15%; ENABLE-2, 81% vs 23%). Adverse events were similar between groups, with the exception of hepatic decompensation (both studies: eltrombopag, 10%; placebo, 5%) and thromboembolic events, which were more common in the eltrombopag group of ENABLE-2. CONCLUSIONS: Eltrombopag increases platelet numbers in thrombocytopenic patients with HCV and advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, allowing otherwise ineligible or marginal patients to begin and maintain antiviral therapy, leading to significantly increased rates of SVR. Clinical trial no: NCT00516321, NCT00529568.

Safety of intravenous metoprolol use in unmonitored wards: a single-centre observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study aims to examine and quantify the risks associated with the use of intravenous metoprolol on unmonitored wards. METHOD: This study was a retrospective single-centre observational study from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2013. The study hospital was a 415-bed, private hospital in Melbourne, Victoria. The study population was all patients who received intravenous metoprolol on an unmonitored ward. The primary outcome measure was the rate of serious adverse events (SAE), defined as a complication of intravenous metoprolol resulting in transfer to a critical-care environment, a medical emergency team call or death. RESULTS: Six hundred and nine patients received a total of 8260 doses of intravenous metoprolol. Seven cases were identified with a SAE deemed possibly related to beta-blocker use and there was one death. All SAE were hypotension, giving an overall rate of hypotension of 7/609 or 1.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5 to 2.4%) with a rate per dose delivered of 0.8/1000 doses (95% CI 0.3 to 1.7). The death occurred in a 94-year-old woman with abdominal sepsis. After case file review, consensus opinion deemed this to be unrelated to intravenous metoprolol. CONCLUSION: The use of intravenous metoprolol on unmonitored wards appears to be safe. The complication rate was low, suggesting that this may be a sensible approach to the management of in-hospital populations at risk of beta-blocker withdrawal.